Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

[deleted]

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Why do you consider these among the best FPS? Turok games have pretty... boring level design combined with early signs of consolitis. RTCW has probably worst feeling gunplay combined with kinda mediocre level design. Especially the gunplay. They managed to combine kinda powerless feeling guns from quake with bonus of them not being accurate. Fun multiplayer, though.

FPS Map design 1993 vs 2010

cfb3573db6e71b1d2c87ad987b553448--gif-maps.jpg


One level in Turok 2:

turok_2_lair_of_the_blind_ones_by_gpuronen-d8xx151.png


The level design quality is varied. Some levels are meh, others are pretty damn great. Level 1 and 2 in Turok 2 are p. shit. Then levels 3, 4 and 5 are really damn good, for instance.

What "consolitus"? Restrictive checkpoint saving combined with a lives system? I'm sorry you're so coddled you don't recognise superior game design (when executed right).

Turok 1 & 2 are fucking fantastic, hardcore as fuck and up there with the greats. RTCW was probably inappropriately placed. Way too much hitscan combat lets it down, but Turok earned its place. the music, the huge gruelling level design, the combat, the weapons, the platforming, the difficulty, it's a goddamn classic.
 
Last edited:

Arcks

Educated
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
90
FPS Map design 1993 vs 2010

cfb3573db6e71b1d2c87ad987b553448--gif-maps.jpg


One level in Turok 2:

turok_2_lair_of_the_blind_ones_by_gpuronen-d8xx151.png


The level design is varied. Some levels are meh, others are pretty damn great.

What "consolitus"? Restrictive checkpoint saving combined with a lives system? I'm sorry you're so coddled you don't recognise superior game design (when executed right).

Turok 1 & 2 are fucking fantastic, hardcore as fuck and up there with the greats. RTCW was probably inappropriately placed. Way too much hitscan combat lets it down, but Turok earned its place.

Picture doesn't really convince me, since I played the game, and that's one of most boring episodes of the game. It's a big maze with really drab aesthetics that's pretty linear in the end (Not that there's anything bad with linearity.). Seemingly complex, but none of the areas aren't actually interconnected. And technically you are being dishonest, as that isn't single level in Turok 2, but each basement part represents a level. It's an episode, really. EDIT: Mission objectives were also a terrible idea to prolong the game. Didn't care for backtracking, either. Or more like how it was done.

And yes, I don't consider checkpoint superior design. It is also pretty slow shooting wise, making it pretty easy on PC. Even on the hardest difficulties (That does apply to lot older PC shooters like doom too, but doom generally did lot others much better, like map design, enemy placement etc.)
 
Last edited:

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
What? It is somewhat interconnected and it is all the same level. Sure you get the occasional teleporter breaking natural interconnectivity but there's practically no load times and it is all the same map.

Big maze? That's good!

drab aesthetics? Waterfalls, lava caverns, spider habitats, crystal caverns, underwater mazes...dude just no. Well ok, it does have a drab, depressing atmosphere, and some areas are less spectacular, but that's the point.

Yes, movement speed is lesser than was the standard back then, though not too slow. Thankfully the recent remaster buffed player speed reasonably.
 

Arcks

Educated
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
90
What? It is somewhat interconnected and it is all the same level. Sure you get the occasional teleporter breaking natural interconnectivity but there's practically no load times and it is all the same map.

Big maze? That's good!

drab aesthetics? Waterfalls, lava caverns, spider habitats, crystal caverns, underwater mazes...dude just no. Well ok, it does have a drab, depressing atmosphere, and some areas are less spectacular, but that's the point.

Yes, movement speed is lesser than was the standard back then, though not too slow. Thankfully the recent remaster buffed player speed reasonably.

I maybe speaking out of my ass here, but yes, I assume that teleporters are level dividers. It does have fast loading times, but I doubt all levels of the basement are same map. It would be like calling episode of knee-deep in the dead a level. I don't think this episode/level in particular isn't interconnected, since it goes like basement level 1 -> basement level 2 etc instead of occasionally basement level 2 -> basement level 5. I think the second episodes had some interconnection, so I guess fucked up there!
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
1,464
Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath
These games haven't been mentioned yet. While they are not necessarily must-play, they are still quite decent:

Marathon series.
Star Trek: Elite Force series.
The Terminator: Future Shock and Skynet.
 

DemonKing

Arcane
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
5,958
I was fiddling with the SW Battlefront 2 campaign on my kid's PS4 last night because I was too lazy to turn on my PC and my wife was sitting next to me asking why all these signposts kept appearing telling me where to go and I had to explain these days designers were worried that people were too dumb and lacked patience to actually explore and find things for themselves, so everything had to be made as easy as possible to prevent the chance of anyone getting frustrated. God knows what today's kids would make of something like the original Wolfenstein where the corridors look all the same and are genuinely mazes...
 

schru

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,131
Another one that hasn't been mentioned yet: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay. The remake from 2009 that was bundled with Assault on Dark Athena looks better but was made easier at multiple points.
 

Lagi

Savant
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
726
Location
Desert
...
Third person shooters are a genre worth playing too, which I also wrote a list detailing non-popamole TPS.

I hope you dont include RUNE only because its not a shooter.

I can agree Hexen has too much puzzle [and punching as for shooter], to be included as best pure FPS, but Heretic? Why its not best in your opinion? Atmosphere of both was amazing and different from each other [back in the time]. Its tasty reskin of Doom + has items that very nicely fit into the carnage.
 

Ocelot

Learned
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
363
Halo series
Bioshock 1
FEAR 1
Metro 2033
new wolfenstein games

:gd:

I get that Halo and Wolfenstein aren't that great, especially for people who aren't super into shooters but the rest are solid. Are you guys aging and stuck in the past or something?

They're all variably shit. Bioshock (any) recommendations are another level of low though. Why are you recommending a game where you mindlessly run around essentially on god mode, and that also has little merit in comparison to its predecessor, System Shock 2?

Modern gamer detected.

Yeah no, you are just old AF if you think a 10-year old game like "Bioshock" is modern. I know that time flows at later ages but 10 years is a lot of time.
 

schru

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,131
Another one that hasn't been mentioned yet: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay. The remake from 2009 that was bundled with Assault on Dark Athena looks better but was made easier at multiple points.

I can't find that on steam for some stupid-ass reason
It was removed from the store several years ago, and Steam only had the new version anyway.

If you're interested in playing the somewhat more challenging and tense (they removed things like a torch that stops working in one section after a while because they deemed it too challenging or something), albeit uglier, original, then a used copy or torrents are the only option. But there's no indication of the remake coming back to Steam either.
 

schru

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,131
Why are people telling me Dark Forces 1/2 are good? They're fucking awful. I got them in a pack years ago. They look and play like shit, tons of autoaim, constantly blaring the same three star wars songs over and over again. I've heard JA is good but it crashes over and over on my PC, so I dunno about that.
I can't comment on Dark Forces 2, but the first one wasn't too bland or repetitive at least until the mid point, and it has one of the better-looking pixel graphics. It might look better to you with desktop resolution scaling and one of the CRT shaders in SVN Daum DOSBox.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Yeah no, you are just old AF if you think a 10-year old game like "Bioshock" is modern. I know that time flows at later ages but 10 years is a lot of time.

The modern era of torrents upon torrents of braindead retarded banal shit games spans 2007-present. Bioshock was one of the games that established the decline. But yes, the term "modern" to label this timeframe is perhaps running its course. Even though the games are still mostly the same big budget pieces of formulaic crap and not a lot has changed since then (well, there's been very slight incline in recent years). Alternatives used are "decline era" and "post-Oblivion", but we probably need a new name.
 

Ocelot

Learned
Joined
Feb 21, 2018
Messages
363
Yeah no, you are just old AF if you think a 10-year old game like "Bioshock" is modern. I know that time flows at later ages but 10 years is a lot of time.

The modern era of torrents upon torrents of braindead retarded banal shit games spans 2007-present. Bioshock was one of the games that established the decline. But yes, the term "modern" to label this timeframe is perhaps running its course. Even though the games are still mostly the same big budget pieces of formulaic crap and not a lot has changed since then (well, there's been very slight incline in recent years). Alternatives used are "decline era" and "post-Oblivion", but we probably need a new name.

What's so wrong about Bioshock that makes you hate it so much? It's not meant to be an RPG or an extremely difficult game. You don't play Bioshock for the challenge anyway. Not every game has to be extremely elaborate or difficult, you know.

Post-2007 era is filled to the brim with decent games. I've been playing games way before that "era" and I'm pretty sure that if I have a bias, it's against recent releases. Maybe you should take off the nostalgia goggles and see things more objectively.
 

Ash

Arcane
Joined
Oct 16, 2015
Messages
6,230
Dude, see my list of recommended FPS. Then see your pitiful list of four of five shit modern cinematic console shooters. Why would you try to compete? Conclusion: I actually know what I'm talking about and can speak more objectively, and you're a molepopper.

As for Bioshock, see the discussion here.

edit: toned down some condescending rudeness, it's unnecessary. :D
 
Last edited:

schru

Arcane
Joined
Feb 27, 2015
Messages
1,131
Since Deus Ex and New Vegas were mentioned, why not add Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines to the list?

The first hub in Kingpin: Life of Crime was very good.

And two Half-Life modifications that feel quite like complete games: Afraid of Monsters: Director's Cut and Cry of Fear.

Bioshock is interesting to play once for the setting, style, and some parts of the story. But it's not good for what it is because it doesn't settle just for being a smooth, trivial console shooter, instead attempting to maintain some vestigial RPG elements through weapon upgrades and some swappable boosters. The difference those make is hardly palpable though, so it's too tedious to bother weighing the options. As the game goes on you just keep facing the same enemies with more health to justify those player upgrades, and that in turn makes the combat into a boring routine. The last third of the game also dragged terribly.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Why are people telling me Dark Forces 1/2 are good? They're fucking awful. I got them in a pack years ago. They look and play like shit, tons of autoaim, constantly blaring the same three star wars songs over and over again. I've heard JA is good but it crashes over and over on my PC, so I dunno about that.

Nigger Dark Forces 2 has some of the most awesome level design ever
 

Siveon

Bot
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
4,509
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Why are people telling me Dark Forces 1/2 are good? They're fucking awful. I got them in a pack years ago. They look and play like shit, tons of autoaim, constantly blaring the same three star wars songs over and over again. I've heard JA is good but it crashes over and over on my PC, so I dunno about that.
"Tons of autoaim".

I don't think that means what you think it means. Dark Forces has no vertical aim the same way vanilla Doom doesn't. Dark Forces 2 has no autoaim whatsoever so I'm not even sure what you're getting at. They both run at steady framerates, and Dark Forces II was one of the fastest FPS's I've ever played. I guess they don't have enough QTE melee kills for you?
 
Self-Ejected

unfairlight

Self-Ejected
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
4,092
Singleplayer or multiplayer? Everyone here has suggested most things singleplayer, so I guess I'll take the task of relatively recent multiplayer titles.
Counter Strike is as good as ever, every single one of them except for Condition Zero and the F2P Korean shit. Counter Strike: Global Offensive has a lot of things I don't like, but to say it is a bad game is unjust. People play it for a reason although those people are some of the worst most worthless human trash imaginable.
Essentially every Battlefield game up until 4 is good. BC2 is great, BF3 is okay but BF4 is better. I'd suggest skipping BF1 since it's relatively casualised compared to older titles.
I really like Insurgency and Rising Storm 2. They're more realistic military shooters, but very intense and fun.
Planetside 2 is easily the largest shooter you can play, you can have up to 300 players in a single fight but it runs pretty poorly with a bad CPU. Just a tip from the get go if you want to try it out, disable shadows no matter what. That kills performance.
Reflex Arena and Midair are pretty recent arena-FPS games but they have small playerbases of pretty high skilled players.
Call of Duty has a bad reputation but almost everything up to CoD4: Modern Warfare was pretty good, after that it's nothing but shit up until Black Ops 3, which has some cool movement and is pretty fun to play.
Renegade X is a free fan made recreation of Command and Conquer: Renegade and it's at least worth trying out.
A lot of people enjoy Rainbow Six: Siege. I don't due to balance and gameplay choices and the fact that you have to grind around 100 hours to unlock all characters, even if you pay full price.
Team Fortress 2 is a game I spent a lot of time years ago with that I think took a turn for the worse. I think it's a game that is at least worth trying out since it is free.
Payday 2 is a coop shooter about robbing stuff. It's one of the best coop games around at the moment, but that's due to a lack of other coop games.
Dirty Bomb is a free to play shooter that's made by the same guys that made Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory which was a free multiplayer add on to Return to Castle Wolfenstein. It's class based, relatively fast and pretty good all around, but it never gripped me as strong as it did for other people and the gameplay got a bit boring.

No one else suggested SWAT 4 or Rainbow Six, these are singleplayer titles but I HIGHLY suggest checking them out. Tactical FPS is a dead genre today and those games are basically its legacy.
I'd also suggest playing SWAT 4 with the SWAT: Elite Force mod. SWAT 4 was the only SWAT game not recommended by the LAPD SWAT, all former titles were. Elite Force makes the game more realistic, have better AI, equipment and good balancing changes all around.
 
Last edited:

Egosphere

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
1,909
Location
Hibernia
Yeah no, you are just old AF if you think a 10-year old game like "Bioshock" is modern. I know that time flows at later ages but 10 years is a lot of time.

The modern era of torrents upon torrents of braindead retarded banal shit games spans 2007-present. Bioshock was one of the games that established the decline. But yes, the term "modern" to label this timeframe is perhaps running its course. Even though the games are still mostly the same big budget pieces of formulaic crap and not a lot has changed since then (well, there's been very slight incline in recent years). Alternatives used are "decline era" and "post-Oblivion", but we probably need a new name.

What's so wrong about Bioshock that makes you hate it so much? It's not meant to be an RPG or an extremely difficult game. You don't play Bioshock for the challenge anyway. Not every game has to be extremely elaborate or difficult, you know.

Post-2007 era is filled to the brim with decent games. I've been playing games way before that "era" and I'm pretty sure that if I have a bias, it's against recent releases. Maybe you should take off the nostalgia goggles and see things more objectively.

Bioshock's only strength is its setting and art direction. Even that could have been handled better: Rapture comes across as some glittery funhouse rather than the living quarters for the world's cognitive elite. Everything else is subpar. Main plot twist is a rip off of SS2, the gunplay is not nearly as cathartic as FEAR's, monsters / bosses are all forgettable, the writing is heavy handed.
 

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
33,052
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Why are people telling me Dark Forces 1/2 are good? They're fucking awful. I got them in a pack years ago. They look and play like shit, tons of autoaim, constantly blaring the same three star wars songs over and over again. I've heard JA is good but it crashes over and over on my PC, so I dunno about that.

Nigger Dark Forces 2 has some of the most awesome level design ever

It really, really doesn't.
- go into room
- being shot at from above by guy
- find way up to them
- rinse and repeat forever

How far did you get in Dark Forces 2? It has some amazingly vertical levels which are a joy to explore and navigate.
 

Siveon

Bot
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
4,509
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Why are people telling me Dark Forces 1/2 are good? They're fucking awful. I got them in a pack years ago. They look and play like shit, tons of autoaim, constantly blaring the same three star wars songs over and over again. I've heard JA is good but it crashes over and over on my PC, so I dunno about that.

Nigger Dark Forces 2 has some of the most awesome level design ever

It really, really doesn't.
- go into room
- being shot at from above by guy
- find way up to them
- rinse and repeat forever
Why don't you just...aim up?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom