FPS essentials

[Morenatsu.]

This whole ‘only arcadey games are games’ thing is getting kind of annoying.

 

[Nutmeg]

This whole ‘only arcadey games are games’ thing is getting kind of annoying.

Then put me on ignore if you can't deal with different opinions.

Also FPS games were never in the arcade format. I'm comparing later FPS with earlier FPS.

 

[Great Deceiver]

The only arcade FPS I can think of off the top of my head (and it was a TPS/FPS hybrid) was SEGA/AM2's Outtrigger, which, while interesting, wasn't really that good. I think the concept was better executed in 2008's The Club, which is strictly a TPS.

In any case, I would only call it an FPS very loosely, it's more of an arena shooter (there's no level exploration to think of).

 

[Morenatsu.]

This whole ‘only arcadey games are games’ thing is getting kind of annoying.

Then put me on ignore if you can't deal with different opinions.

Also FPS games were never in the arcade format. I'm comparing later FPS with earlier FPS.

Different opinions are retarded. Who gives a shit about score screens? That's entirely superficial and has nothing to do with what the game is actually about. It's just extra. What is a secret? It's not a point on a screen, it's about exploration and resource management. That's what's actually important.

Of course the retard is going to interpret ‘arcadey’ as meaning ‘literally in an arcade cabinet in an arcade’. Yeah, okay, sure, Wolfenstein 3D's lives and pointless scoring totally aren't arcadey, uh-huh. If we're gonna be literalistic retards, how about I say that Half-Life 2 and Sin were actually in arcades, did you know? Lmao pwned. you have been epically disproovened.

 

[Nutmeg]

The only arcade FPS I can think of off the top of my head (and it was a TPS/FPS hybrid) was SEGA/AM2's Outtrigger, which, while interesting, wasn't really that good. I think the concept was better executed in 2008's The Club, which is strictly a TPS.

In any case, I would only call it an FPS very loosely, it's more of an arena shooter (there's no level exploration to think of).

There's also

 

[Lemming42]

But another part of these games' design decisions can be interpreted as a forward looking product of the focus on immersion, story-telling and cinema that would dominate AAA single-player "gaming" since, which, IMO, views games (i.e. the things unique to games) with contempt and disdain.

Can't agree with this. Half-Life fully embraces the potential of being a videogame. The story simply wouldn't work as well in any other medium - it would make for a boring B-movie, and in novel form it would be an absolute waste of paper as the plot is so thin and cliched. It all comes together purely because of the effective use it makes of the medium and the way it engages the player. The player sees what Gordon sees, knows what Gordon knows, reacts as Gordon reacts. This complaint sounds to me like saying Fallout killed RPGs by championing a focus on story and setting over mechanics. But nobody does argue that, because we appreciate that the genre has room for mechanics-focused games like Wizardry and story/"C&C"-focused games like Fallout, each with their own strengths and unique approaches, neither necessarily better or worse than the other. It's a shame that people don't tend to do the same thing with FPS games.

Preferring older FPS titles with mazelike levels, keycards and secrets is a totally legit opinion of course, but the idea that a game like Half-Life has contempt for videogames sounds insane to me. Half-Life is something that can only really exist in videogame form.

While we're at it, I don't get the problem with the airstrike table. It's a completely decent puzzle - the player takes down a gargantua in a "cool" way and then clears the path forward. It also gives a nice little story beat with the "forget about Freeman" message.

 

[Morenatsu.]

But another part of these games' design decisions can be interpreted as a forward looking product of the focus on immersion, story-telling and cinema that would dominate AAA single-player "gaming" since, which, IMO, views games (i.e. the things unique to games) with contempt and disdain.

Can't agree with this. Half-Life fully embraces the potential of being a videogame. The story simply wouldn't work as well in any other medium - it would make for a boring B-movie, and in novel form it would be an absolute waste of paper as the plot is so thin and cliched. It all comes together purely because of the effective use it makes of the medium and the way it engages the player. The player sees what Gordon sees, knows what Gordon knows, reacts as Gordon reacts. This complaint sounds to me like saying Fallout killed RPGs by championing a focus on story and setting over mechanics. But nobody does argue that, because we appreciate that the genre has room for mechanics-focused games like Wizardry and story/"C&C"-focused games like Fallout, each with their own strengths and unique approaches, neither necessarily better or worse than the other. It's a shame that people don't tend to do the same thing with FPS games.

Preferring older FPS titles with mazelike levels, keycards and secrets is a totally legit opinion of course, but the idea that a game like Half-Life has contempt for videogames sounds insane to me. Half-Life is something that can only really exist in videogame form.

Silly lemming, you don't get it, in real life games are solely about gameplay so video games should just be like that. My autistic dictionary told me so. Real devs didn't have any ambitions toward fully utilizing the medium, they just wanted to be codeslaves to the narrow tastes of some guy on an internet forum. Duh.

 

[schru]

I didn't play Doom and Quake properly until the more recent years and I came around from regarding them as unrefined and simplistic to being the best pure FPSes ever, so I don't think the preference for them is just relative to experiencing them at the time.

Definitely a lot was lost going from Doom and Quake to Half-Life and Unreal.

Quake itself is flawed IMO, and I think a lot of Quake 2, Half-Life and Unreal's design decisions can be interpreted as trying to fix those flaws. All three successors feature better weapons, Quake 2 re-ups the enemy count somewhat, while Unreal and Half-Life use AI to make enemies more interesting. Wins, IMO.

But another part of these games' design decisions can be interpreted as a forward looking product of the focus on immersion, story-telling and cinema that would dominate AAA single-player "gaming" since, which, IMO, views games (i.e. the things unique to games) with contempt and disdain. The main loss here is not just the primitive but reasonable secrets, kills and time scoring, but also the level design discipline that came with it. Can anyone imagine the boat ride or train rides in Unreal and Half-Life if the game still gave you a par time on map clear? Or Unreal maps like "the trench" or "spire village" with their slow moving and easily circumvent-able, but otherwise ammo sponge enemies? And what about the airstrike table in Half-Life? Not that Unreal and Half-Life didn't improve or iterate on Quake level design in some ways, or even most of the time, but for every few steps forward they also trip over and fall flat on their face.

Quake 2 is an exception. The level design is reasonable throughout (if some would say visually unappealing), but the enemy design is just awful, especially towards the end of the game. A good comparison is between the iron maidens in Quake 2 (which aren't even bad) and eightball equipped Skaarj in Unreal. There's no contest. Even if you compare bad enemies to bad enemies e.g. tank commanders in Quake 2 to titans in Unreal, at least the latter are positioned in open spaces where they can be somewhat of a threat, and not just a game of watch the fat guy get stuck in a door way and play peek-a-boo and click.

Doom's only "flaw" OTOH is that the environments aren't fully 3D. Perhaps I'll find Duke 3D or Blood happy middles? I know Duke 3D buys an inventory at the cost of instant power ups, something I sorely missed from Doom and the first Quake when playing Quake's successors, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Blood ditches the time in its score screens, but perhaps level design didn't suffer? I'll find out soon enough.

I meant to comment on your earlier posts about each game but I haven't felt focused enough, but I might yet do so.

Generally, I started out preferring shooters that integrated narrative and gameplay in a seamless and immersive way. Of course, there's a right way to do it, which I think Valve managed to capture, even in Half-Life 2, and there is a wrong way to do it which was apparently in some of the more rigidly scripted games of the early 2000s, and more so in the ‘cinematic’ games since the Xbox360 and PS3 generation. For a long time I preferred Valve's approach in general, so I didn't, and still don't, have a problem with games that give more weight to immersion, cinematic style, or set pieces, but I also felt that pretty much none of the games attempting to follow that direction were quite as good, while the shooters designed as multi-platform games were just trivial and tedious. First-person games that incorporate some aspects of simulation are also enjoyable just because of the way these things can influence immersion or are entertaining in their own way.

I wouldn't want to do away with the immersive aspects or ‘atmospheric exploration’ in Unreal or even integrated narrative sequences in Half-Life, but at the same time I can see how much the old Id Software and 3D Realms shooters benefited from their uninterrupted gameplay where everything was integrated into one, seamless flow. As exciting and immersive Half-Life 2 and other scripted shooters were initially, they get quite dull on replays, so rediscovering just how fun the seemingly ‘simplistic’ approach in Doom is forced me to reconsider what qualities can make for a great shooter.

It's true that Quake had a troubled development and that its arsenal is a bit limited, but what I think makes it stand above most other games in the genre is that what it does have to offer works really great, while the more imaginative and larger arsenals in other shooters tend not to be integrated with the enemy roster and the rhythm of the combat so well. As for the insufficiencies Doom has, they stem from real technological limitations which Id Software took a careful consideration of and didn't try to work around in cheap ways that would make the game feel constrained. The fact that the original formula was never translated and expanded into the capabilities of fully 3-D engines successfully beyond Quake shows that it's a challenge that no developer has seriously attempted to tackle yet.

As for Duke, Blood, and Shadow Warrior, I don't mean to be dismissive of them by any means as they're great fun. It's just that compared to the polish and flow of Id's early titles they leave something to be desired. Their level design is quite excellent, but the weapons in Duke and how they factor into fighting various enemies feels a bit amateur, like they're more reliant on simply being fun to use rather than how they're balanced. Shadow Warrior is better in this respect, despite its enemies being perhaps too intentionally harassing and the levels not having as good a flow.

 

[Nutmeg]

but the idea that a game like Half-Life has contempt for videogames sounds insane to me. Half-Life is something that can only really exist in videogame form.

I like to distinguish between "interactive media", and *game*. Videogames are what they are, and certainly single player video games have embraced being "interactive media" first and foremost starting from the mid 90s, almost completely abandoning any *game* in them. Earlier videogames were the opposite, and this is a big reason why I limit my gaming to games made 2006 and earlier (with a few exceptions, ofc.)

his complaint sounds to me like saying Fallout killed RPGs by championing a focus on story and setting over mechanics. But nobody does argue that, because we appreciate that the genre has room for mechanics-focused games like Wizardry and story/"C&C"-focused games like Fallout, each with their own strengths and unique approaches, neither necessarily better or worse than the other. It's a shame that people don't tend to do the same thing with FPS games.

My own opinion here is RPGs were never that good, and funnily enough the only type of RPGs I can stomach are dungeon crawlers, although a big part of my FPS genre exploration here is an attempt to find games which keep the things I like in dungeon crawlers (mainly the dungeons) while ditching other trappings of the RPG genre. I'm certainly not a fan of Fallout at all.

Anyway I don't have anything against people who view videogames primarily as interactive media. It's the dominant modern opinion after all, especially on this forum, and in matters of taste there can be no disputes. That said, my own tastes are different. I personally prefer videogames that don't sacrifice game for immersion. Old fashioned way of thinking perhaps, but it's how I think. So, most of my analysis will be from this angle. Other like-minded people will find it useful (maybe?), while those who adopt the more mainstream view will probably get annoyed by some of the things I write. This can't be helped, IMO.

 

[Lemming42]

I like to distinguish between "interactive media", and *game*. Videogames are what they are, and certainly single player video games have embraced being "interactive media" first and foremost starting from the mid 90s, almost completely abandoning any *game* in them. Earlier videogames were the opposite, and this is a big reason why I limit my gaming to games made 2006 and earlier (with a few exceptions, ofc.)

Fair enough. I think you may be overstating the case a bit though - Half-Life has plenty of "game" in it. Combat offers many guns with different strengths and applications, enemy types are varied, encounter design is typically good, exploration plays a prominent role in the game (even though the levels are ultimately rather restricted), platforming segments offer a decent challenge* and most of the setpieces introduce a new gameplay mechanic for the player to experiment with and master (obvious examples being the sound detection system for the tentacles in Blast Pit and the train controls in On A Rail). I don't quite see the fundamental difference between Half-Life and Doom in that regard, other than that Half-Life enjoys introducing new gimmicky things as a way to add a little spice to the experience, while Doom leans almost entirely on its strong core mechanics. Both games design levels around letting the player experience the mechanics on offer, the only difference being that Doom offers combat and exploration while Half-Life offers less combat and less exploration but more "setpiece"-oriented activities.

*I've never understood why people bash the platforming in Half-Life. Some parts of Interloper are pretty awful but most of the platform challenges are good fun, especially on the canyon in Surface Tension and the machinery in Residue Processing

I've also always wondered what id would have done with Doom if they'd made it five or so years later, with new technology available. A lot of those early games seemed to be sort of trying to achieve a more Half-Life sort of style at times, especially with the Build games which are almost prototypes of Half-Life in some areas. With System Shock especially, you can really feel the devs' ambitions straining against the engine limitations they were working with.

 

[Nutmeg]

Combat offers many guns with different strengths and applications, enemy types are varied, encounter design is typically good, exploration plays a prominent role in the game (even though the levels are ultimately rather restricted), platforming segments offer a decent challenge* and most of the setpieces introduce a new gameplay mechanic for the player to experiment with and master (obvious examples being the sound detection system for the tentacles in Blast Pit and the train controls in On A Rail). I don't quite see the fundamental difference between Half-Life and Doom in that regard

Exactly. I didn't say Half-Life was a complete abandonment of game in videogames. Indeed I quite liked Half-Life (I think you read my long AAR on the game?) and think it improved on Quake in many important ways. I was just highlighting that there were a few aspects which I consider missteps given my own tastes and preferences that came along with the improvements.

 

[Viata]

Also FPS games were never in the arcade format. I'm comparing later FPS with earlier FPS.

There is House of the Dead. And many others rail shooter games.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

The only arcade FPS I can think of off the top of my head (and it was a TPS/FPS hybrid) was SEGA/AM2's Outtrigger, which, while interesting, wasn't really that good. I think the concept was better executed in 2008's The Club, which is strictly a TPS.

Well, there's this, which doesn't look like its all that fun, but that may just be the way the guy is playing.

 

[Bad Sector]

Can anyone imagine the boat ride or train rides in Unreal and Half-Life if the game still gave you a par time on map clear?

Well, yes, Unreal's boat ride at least was skippable (and i did skip it :-P)... and besides that, people already keep time scores for HL1 ever since it cam out anyway, even if the game itself doesn't. An unskippable part is just added into the "par" time (even Quake even had a couple of those, like the slowly descending platform where the Vore is introduced, or the part where you are enclosed in a cage and almost drown).

IIRC Carmack decided to get rid of par times because he thought it was a bad idea to incentivize people to finish the games as fast as possible.

Who gives a shit about score screens?

I like them.

 

[octavius]

I don't think I played Return to Na'Pali back in the day.

When it comes to gunplay I think it was a marked improvement on the base game.

 

[HansDampf]

*I've never understood why people bash the platforming in Half-Life.

Because they are bad at it. The most common complaint I see is that many have problems with crouch-jumping. Xen also introduces a new jump mechanic very late in the game, and if you make a mistake you fall to your death.

I like to distinguish between "interactive media", and *game*. Videogames are what they are, and certainly single player video games have embraced being "interactive media" first and foremost starting from the mid 90s, almost completely abandoning any *game* in them. Earlier videogames were the opposite, and this is a big reason why I limit my gaming to games made 2006 and earlier (with a few exceptions, ofc.)

I see what we call "video games" today as a mix of different media. Simplified, they have some game parts (gameplay) and some story parts (walking sim/visual novel/interactive media/etc.). Story parts usually lead you to the next game part. Games with more story parts tend to have less interesting game parts, as if resources have to be divided, with some exceptions. They often rely on little gimmicks to mix things up and keep the gameplay from getting boring. They aim for variety rather than depth. The physics puzzles and driving sections in HL2 are one example.
Calling the entire thing a "video game" is a poor definition, just like "RPG". When you think of non-video games, there is always a skill or system to learn. When you play golf or billiards, you have to develop a good technique to succeed. You can also play by yourself against arbitrary scores, so they have a singleplayer component. Card games and board games require good strategy. But when we are talking about "video games", things like Dear Esther and Disco Elysium also count as "games" despite their complete lack of game. That's not a value judgement, btw. I've enjoyed Disco, but it's not a game because there are no systems or skills to learn. It's all CYOA story.

 

[Morenatsu.]

Half-Life platforming is mostly just falling onto platforms, which is the easiest form of platforming there is. In fact, first-person makes it easier, not harder.

 

[Nutmeg]

walking sim

I was just thinking about what to make of sections in some real time games (e.g. many FPSes) where you stock up on resources. On the one hand, there's no time pressure, and its a real-time game, so if you think of it in turn based terms where every 10 seconds or so is a turn or whatever, then it really is just a walking sim. On the other hand, if you think of the whole section as a turn and stocking up as an exploration puzzle it's really no different from e.g. optimizing the tiles a city is working in a Civ game.

Half-Life platforming is mostly just falling onto platforms, which is the easiest form of platforming there is. In fact, first-person makes it easier, not harder.

Exactly. Half-Life's platforming is overstated. It's mostly what I call safe descent puzzles i.e. how to safely descend some height.

I was actually disappointed that you get the crouch boost jump so late into the game, after being teased with it in the "hazard course". Not that I like first person platforming, but rather exactly because it would have trivialized those rare but annoying sections where you do have to tightly time your jump to just before you're about to fall off the edge of the surface.

When it comes to gunplay I think it was a marked improvement on the base game.

I watched a couple of online reviews and they thought the new weapons and action was much worse in Return, so not sure what to believe now. One thing I noticed in the base game is that hit scan weapons gave the player a huge advantage. I would use the ASMD and Rifle for everything except CQC unless I was out of ammo for the two. This is because while the enemy AI can dodge projectiles, it has no answer to getting repeated blasts in the face from hit scan weapons. It's actually kind of a big flaw in the game, but alleviated by the fact that ammo for both the ASMD and Rifle isn't nearly so plentiful.

Anyway I'm almost done with F.E.A.R (up to interval 8). Very good game. I'll post my full thoughts when I complete it.

So now again I'm thinking of where I'll draw the line between genre exploration and settling down with a few games to (attempt to) play at a high(er) level.

I will definitely play: Blood, Doom 2 and Duke 3D, in that order, after F.E.A.R.

Then maybe Perfect Dark and Time Splitters 2. I'm willing to give these games a chance despite thinking GoldenEye is hot garbage. Actually I think F.E.A.R managed to execute well something GoldenEye executed poorly (more thoughts on this when I write my AAR on F.E.A.R), and that only reinforced my desire to play GoldenEye's spiritual sequels.

Following the thread of console classics, I'd have to check out Doom 64, and Powerslave. Then to round out the 90s: Shadow Warrior (the weakest of the Build holy trinity?), Dark Forces 2, Sin, Turok (2? which one is better?) and Alien vs Predator 1.

Post 90s there's not much I'm interested in. There's the first Far Cry, Serious Sam, and Riddick. All by European developers. Come to think of it, Time Splitters 2 is also European. Only Prey (2006) interests me from the original US based FPS devs, in this time period.

But I think where I'll draw the line will be Time Splitters 2. Come back to the others in a few years time or something. So many cool games, so little time .

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

What really makes first-person platforming ass is janky collision physics and precision platforming. Like having to jump on a small spot. Outside of the canyon section I don't think Half-Life has that problem, and even then, it is just falling down. You're not going to accidentally hit a wall when you think you're going to miss it, or worse, get knocked back by the wall. I think they designed most of the platforming around specifically not having that problem.

 

[Great Deceiver]

While on the topic of first-person platforming, I think the game to have done it the best was Metroid Prime. I really liked it. The second game was great too, but I never finished it on the Gamecube. I should get back to it some day.

 

[octavius]

When it comes to gunplay I think it was a marked improvement on the base game.

I watched a couple of online reviews and they thought the new weapons and action was much worse in Return, so not sure what to believe now.

I don't remember about the weapnons, but instead of a single or pairs of Skarj being the only unpredictable enemies, you now face several groups of mercs with bot AI. I certainly found the gunplay more intense and exciting than in the base game.
I played an UT remake of of RTNP, though, so things may be somewhat different to the original.

 

[Morenatsu.]

When it comes to gunplay I think it was a marked improvement on the base game.

I watched a couple of online reviews and they thought the new weapons and action was much worse in Return, so not sure what to believe now.

I don't remember about the weapnons, but instead of a single or pairs of Skarj being the only unpredictable enemies, you now face several groups of mercs with bot AI. I certainly found the gunplay more intense and exciting than in the base game.
I played an UT remake of of RTNP, though, so things may be somewhat different to the original.

Still at it with the UT remakes, I see. I remember you ignored me when I called you retarded for recommending a UT remake of Marathon.

 

[schru]

I will definitely play: Blood, Doom 2 and Duke 3D, in that order, after F.E.A.R.

Then maybe Perfect Dark and Time Splitters 2. I'm willing to give these games a chance despite thinking GoldenEye is hot garbage. Actually I think F.E.A.R managed to execute well something GoldenEye executed poorly (more thoughts on this when I write my AAR on F.E.A.R), and that only reinforced my desire to play GoldenEye's spiritual sequels.

Following the thread of console classics, I'd have to check out Doom 64, and Powerslave. Then to round out the 90s: Shadow Warrior (the weakest of the Build holy trinity?), Dark Forces 2, Sin, Turok (2? which one is better?) and Alien vs Predator 1.

Post 90s there's not much I'm interested in. There's the first Far Cry, Serious Sam, and Riddick. All by European developers. Come to think of it, Time Splitters 2 is also European. Only Prey (2006) interests me from the original US based FPS devs, in this time period.

But I think where I'll draw the line will be Time Splitters 2. Come back to the others in a few years time or something. So many cool games, so little time .

Well then, a few more notes and comments:

Blood – NightDive's recent port seems fine enough, but I'd still go with playing in DOSBox to make sure that everything works right; use a custom build like SVN Daum for the better Direct3D renderer; the main version of the music are the CD tracks which differ quite a lot from the MIDI versions, however, the MIDI option offers more tracks and hence their use in the levels is different, so it's something to consider for a replay

Doom II – Chocolate Doom with SC-55 recordings (https://sc55.duke4.net/games.php#doom2) might be the best option as it retains all the features of the original renderer while also supporting menu demos; note that there are many official extra episodes and levels included with the various releases and they're all worth playing; there should be a list on one of the fan wikis

Duke 3D – eduke32 doesn't support the original demos because of desynchronization between the versions, but there are also SC-55 recordings that can be used with it, while getting the music to sound right in DOSBox would require one of the old Roland units or the Sound Canvas VA which is a reasonable approximation (same applies to many other games with MIDI music);

the software renderer is preferable because the sprites and skyboxes just don't look right in full 3-D rendering, albeit it's worth noting that the Polymost renderer included with eduke32 was originally developed by the Build engine's creator, Ken Silverman;

Gearbox's twentieth anniversary re-release is very questionable in technical terms and because of the silly new lighting, but it does include an arrangement of the full sound track for SC-88 by one of the original composers (the SC-55 rendition is nevertheless preferable) and a new episode made by one of the original level designers

Doom 64 – the praise it's been getting recently is quite excessive and rather due to a fashion, but it is interesting enough to warrant playing

Shadow Warrior – I think it's wrong to speak of it as weak in any sense, it's just not as prominent as the other two; it's very much an iteration on Duke 3D's gameplay and it adds much needed complexity to the combat, but at the expense of the flow at times; the style is very much in the spirit of Duke and it's generally a very enjoyable experience, so you definitely shouldn't skip it; as before, it's better to play the original version in DOSBox as the Polymost-derived renderer makes the skies and sprites look wrong

Dark Forces II – why not the original too?; at any rate, there's a problem with the music because it was divided between two discs and it seems that the way the GOG version has it configured isn't quite right, but I don't recall what the solution was

Sin – apparently NightDive's version is quite acceptable, although there might be a problem with the HUD being too small at high resolutions; there's a patch for the Gold version: https://steamcommunity.com/app/1313/discussions/0/558755529456045660/

Turok – I think the first one is better as a whole, as the second one, while having rather nice weapons, has labyrinthine levels made up of very repetitive segments; it should be noted that NightDive's remasters cut down the complexity of some of the levels in both games, which may seem sensible, but then it's such a distinctive feature of these games that it rather seems like it should have been left alone; the view distance and movement are also changed in those re-releases

Far Cry – it's very good, you should play; there's a problem with land and vegetation (or at least one of these) not being reflected in the water on newer systems, I'm not sure if there's a fix for it, but since dgVoodoo 2 now covers Direct3D 9, that might do it, if it doesn't run too slowly; also, don't use the 64-bit version as it was a later addition and despite having visual improvements it seems to break some of the enemy scripts

Serious Sam – play them all, they're all good, although the original two Encounters are the only ones that got the formula just right, while all the other instalments are various kinds of compromises; but you don't want to miss out on the story and Sam's quips, do you?; the HD remakes of the Encounters are nice, but the new engine couldn't handle some of the spatial and gravity tricks from the old games, resulting in a few sections being removed

Riddick – Escape from Butcher Bay is a very unique hybrid adventure, beat 'em up, shooter, and Vin-Diesel-being-cool simulator; the remaster included with Assault on Dark Athena (which is rather weak) improves the graphics but simplifies some of the gameplay

Prey (2006) – it has a very nice, flashy start, but I think its special features are rather gimmicky and the basic combat gameplay gets rather repetitive and tiresome, but it's still interesting enough to warrant playing.

When it comes to gunplay I think it was a marked improvement on the base game.

I watched a couple of online reviews and they thought the new weapons and action was much worse in Return, so not sure what to believe now.

I don't remember about the weapnons, but instead of a single or pairs of Skarj being the only unpredictable enemies, you now face several groups of mercs with bot AI. I certainly found the gunplay more intense and exciting than in the base game.
I played an UT remake of of RTNP, though, so things may be somewhat different to the original.

That might be quite different then as UT itself changed all the weapons from the original game quite considerably. The new weapons in Return to Na Pali felt like out-takes from the beta that were included in the expansion pack just to give the players more content. They're not terrible, but Unreal already had a number of unusual weapons that were rather in need of more enemy varieties and better encounter design to make them more useful. The mercenaries appear only in one place in the original version, I think.

 

[toughasnails]

Turok 1 aged far better than Goldeneye imo. It has the sensibility of 90s 3D platformer which still holds up, it's like N64 collectathon platformer crossed with FPS.
And speaking of Metroid Prime, much like with some of OG Unreal guys some of Turok 1 and 2 devs ended up at Retro and were involved in Metroid Prime's development.

 

[Nutmeg]

OK finished F.E.A.R. No quick saves (except to suspend and resume), but otherwise no restrictions, on "high" difficulty.

I really, really liked F.E.A.R.

I think Unreal (EDIT: no, it must have been someone else) described F.E.A.R as the "true" sequel to Half-Life. It's certainly a sequel to Half-Life's HECU marine battles, folded over a thousand times, sharp like katana, gaijin go home, and its levels certainly do share some of the design spirit as well, but it's missing enough parts of the Half-Life experience, both bad and more importantly good, to make it not a complete sequel.

One of the good things from Half-Life that's missing, or rather, is different and lesser in degree, is the perilous navigation. I don't refer to just the safe descent puzzles, as I like to call the "platforming" in Half-Life, but also the ubiquitous environmental hazards and fauna lying in ambush which made every corner, vent entry, and stair a potential loss of health if you weren't attentive to audiovisual cues, or your memory was failing you on a subsequent play-through. Indeed, F.E.A.R only had a few fiery gas leaks, one out of control vehicle, one jump, a couple of safe descent puzzles, and one perilous ledge for the entire experience. That said, one unintentional hazard type from Half-Life I don't miss at all is the ladder, fixed in F.E.A.R simply with the interact button (given a helpful little icon on the HUD when it would do something) being the only way to attach yourself to a ladder.

As a replacement of sorts for the variety of hazards lost from Half-Life, lighting, or rather the lack thereof, becomes the main environmental threat. Dark hallways, rooms and corners, invite the use of your torch, but its use can alert the enemy early, giving them the initiative in the ensuing firefight (though sometimes this can be to the player's advantage). And while there are no head crabs lying in ambush, you still have to be careful going around corners as you'll eat a few bullets if you walk unawares into the line of sight of enemies in fortified positions. There are lean buttons, and leaning around corners quickly becomes a habit.

A reasonable trade, doubly so as the necessity to pack more voluminous hazards into the levels is removed, resulting in smaller firefight-free spaces. On the other hand, this effect is partially spoiled by the more pedestrian (i.e. slow and "realistic") movement. While the game gives you a nifty sliding and jumping kick, it doesn't require their use for any "secret" resource pickups that I know of (although there is good reason for that in the context of the broader design), nor can you use them to speed through levels with jank parkour like you can with Half-Life's simpler and more exploitable crouch and jump combinations.

Anyway these compact, torch exploration sections are one rhythm in the level design, the other being the battle spaces. These usually feature one or two loops, and maybe a second floor reachable by one or two flights of stairs. They have one (or two at most, IME) entry points for the player. They also feature rooms.

Loops, when present, result in impressive flanking maneuvers and positional play on the part of the AI. Multiple levels, when present, make close quarters fighting 3D. At some points, I found the enemy directly below me, or directly above me, as I either took cover or shot at them from below or above the platform from where they were positioned. At longer distances, multiple levels ensure targets and threats can cover the whole screen (as opposed to being glued to the one floor occupying the lower or upper half). Rooms and their windows provide natural cover, but in their absence there is usually some large machinery or furniture (and yes, the occasional crate). Some forms of cover are false friends, such as non bullet proof glass, objects which will animate via the physics engine, and happily, explosive barrels, fire extinguishers and gas pipes. The enemy will exploit turtling in cover with both grenades and the aforementioned intelligent flanking, but at a smaller scale. Enemies will also employ cover themselves, even (rather cleverly) for ambushes after the player might think the firefight over.

In short, the levels are excellently designed to facilitate multiple kinds of emergent action scenarios arising from the AI, while ensuring a high expected value (in statistical terms) for the quality. That said, the quality peaks rather randomly, and its highest peaks are kind of teases, as they're that good, but also that rare.

A small complaint on the levels, and nothing I care about too deeply, is that it can be difficult to suspend disbelief when you get some more serious fire power but still can't break some very fragile looking obstacles blocking your path.

Moving on from level design, F.E.A.R's AI is legendary (you can read a paper on it here: https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf), but what kind of emergent action actually results from the interplay between the AI and the level design? I've noticed two patterns.

The first is the Virtua Cop like shooting gallery. This happens when the enemy is not successful in smoking the player out of cover near the entry point(s) to the hot zone, usually because the player managed to take out their forward elements quickly, and the threats further back are not accurate enough with their grenades. In the ensuing battle, while the player focuses on the smaller targets further away, some members of the opposing force will sneak between cover points and surprise them by popping out closer than expected, and from a different part of the screen than where the player was focusing their fire. The end result really does feel like a well made light gun game. GoldenEye eat your heart out, F.E.A.R did what you couldn't.

The other pattern is intense positional battle where both the player and their enemies are always trying to outflank each other, with grenades flying sporadically from both sides. These kinds of fights are very thrilling, but, rationally speaking, if the battle gets to this stage it's cause the player was flushed out into the open at some point or was simply too aggressive and misjudged the number of enemies, and, in any case, are more likely to die as a result.

Enemy design and composition is great, albeit the latter is kept simple. You have various types of "replica" soldiers, all very smart, but all quite similar save for their appearance and type of weapons you can expect them to wield. Replica squads may be augmented with "heavies" and powered armors, both fulfilling similar roles of being large, tanky (but still quite mobile) targets packing greater firepower. The latter is the game's sole projectile thrower. Finally, there are the replica assassins, unfortunately a step back from their Half-Life black ops counterparts, as they seem to have perfected the art of moving silently (save for when they crash through windows), removing what I considered a very enjoyable element (and excellent use of the first person perspective) fighting them. They are, also, perhaps too suicidally aggressive. Admittedly, I did use slow-mo to deal with them, so this problem might be alleviated somewhat with the obvious challenge run options available to the player.

Opposing both the player and the replicas (only in one instance I can remember) are the surprisingly dangerous security guards (they're lightly armored but super fast and there are always more of them than you'd expect). The non-human enemies, i.e. the turrets and drones also belong to this "faction" (I believe) neither of which I found a satisfying way to fight (usually just take strong cover and win the damage race).

Speaking of challenge run options, the two most obvious are "no slow-mo key bound" and "no medkit key bound". Avoiding slow-mo is self explanatory, but there's a bit of nuance to the medkits. Firstly, there are periodic permanent, more or less "secret", upgrades to your health, which also replenish your health entirely. Key point. There's also armor, which unlike the medkits, can't be stowed for later use, but is equipped immediately. The result is that a medkit less, "interval" (elsewhere "chapter") length (or greater) segments run, would be quite arcade-like in its miss requirements, while not being unreasonable. I mentioned earlier that secrets don't require any advanced movement techniques to reach, nor are they that out of the way really. One reason as to why might be that they become just normal pickups in medkitless runs.

I didn't talk about the guns, suffice to say they're great and while the guns available early on might lead you to think it's going to be endless rifle variants like any modern military shooter, this ends up not being the case at all as the game progresses. The only complaint I have is that there wasn't enough content in the game left after you started getting reasonable ammo counts for the more unique and heavy hitting weapons in your arsenal. Maybe the expansions "fix" this? Don't know yet.

I also didn't talk about the cheesy ring girl, and the horror film inspired, Half-Life-like "in game cutscenes". They're short and not very offensive on the whole, although, as always, the game would simply be better (IMO) without them altogether. The good part is, they often have an apparition or two to shoot, lest you take a bit of damage. Neat bit of interactivity in otherwise dull 30 second segments. The bad part is these apparitions, which pop like popcorn from one pistol bullet, form the only enemy type in the last (but thankfully quite short) "interval" of the game. Could have been decent with a time limit (and it would have fit the plot), but as it is they're just a slight nuisance. The problem is compounded by the game teasing you with ammo aplenty for the repeating cannon, which is suboptimal against the apparitions, but is otherwise a joy to employ against more challenging encounters.

In terms of the game's aesthetics and the technical graphics, I quite enjoyed them. I played with hard shadows, an artefact of the time and rendering technique I really love. The ol' Carmack reverse. I really, really liked the corporate, industrial-lite, abandoned industrial, and underground lab environments. They looked great. Monolith seem like huge weebs as well, with this game obviously being inspired by Ringu (although I haven't watched that). Music, like the whole horror theme, was try-hard and cheesy (to me), but not offensive or anything. Voice work was good and fun (all those missed calls). The audio design is a step back from something like Half-Life (but then again, many games are), but strong technically with EAX enabled via a wrapper to OpenAL. That said, audio design is not lacking in the most fundamental parts (e.g. gun sounds).

In conclusion, a great sequel of sorts to Half-Life which refines and iterates on a few of its best aspects, at this point holding only a tenuous but nevertheless important connection to Doom and Quake (namely in the weapons, heath and armor, and also, unlike Half-Life, gimmick-free focus on core action). It's also a better Virtua Cop with free movement than GoldenEye could ever hope to be, even though it probably wasn't even trying. I'm looking forward to replaying it on the highest difficulty and slow-mo less, and also checking out the expansions.