Totally different lighting style but after playing it, it sucks hard. Guns don't even make noise.
Other than being a bit fast and doom eternalish it wasn't an awful game. I've played much worse retro shooters from the 90s.
So Zelda archery training and gears of war are FPS now? Does Nu Doom not count since glory kills are essential to keeping ammo up and hence more important?
Proof that even retarded people can find the submit button on Wikipedia.
Didn't you just make this argument yesterday?
So, remind me again what you typically do in order to get a Glory Kill? Also, remind me why getting ammo is also important?
Great, but what's your definition of FPS that excludes those? "Shooting is the most important thing"? Then System Shock and Strife are obviously FPS games while Metro and STALKER arguably aren't.
Depends on what you are looking for I guess. Got bored real fucking fast. And "a bit"? More than a bit don't you think? Also the spritework and weapons are shit.
You tell me. For me it's all quite simple, if it looks, smells, feels and tastes like A, it's A.
Lol, what version of System Shock are you playing where first person shooting isn't the whole core of the game? It is a game about moving down corridors and shooting respawning enemies. The entire last two floors of the game, Security and Bridge, are just wall-to-wall combat. But it's not an FPS because... you find audio logs? You have to backtrack to open doors? You have to do wire puzzles? You can pick up SEVERED HEAD and throw it across the room? You get rocket boots? It has cyberspace, which plays like Descent?
You could just say "Doom clone" if you mean Doom clones. But the point is that nobody's going to be able to come up with a definition for "FPS" that covers games like Doom, Half-Life, Metro, Far Cry, Rainbow Six, etc but manages to arbitrarily exclude shit like SS.
I would like to see the people who disagree explain what invalidates the primary way to interact with the world from being part of it's definition. There isn't an either or immersive sim/FPS conflict. You can have an immersive sim FPS, the same way you can have a fighting game dungeon crawler (Tobal series) or an action JRPG. They're describing different aspects of a complex entity. If you have to argue a game where you view the game in first person and shoot things regularly isn't an FPS then you have to explain why the most obvious explanation is wrong and another is correct. If you approached a complete dunce who's never seen a game before and showed them Doom 2, Quake, System shock, Metro, Bioshock infinite, Halo, Half-life, Deus Ex Human revolution, Rainbow six and Nu Prey what do you think they would say they were? Shooting games, if you pushed for a camera definition they would say something more or less along the lines of first person. If you then showed them Mario 2, Crash Bandicoot, Bioshock infinite, Deus Ex, Quake, Mario 64 and Sonic adventure there is zero chance they call them all jumping games or try to define them as anything close to the same because they all share one minor mechanic instead of 2 major ones (camera and combat).
Yeah, I think that's the essence of it - like LS said above, genre definitions are approximations at best. You can definitely trace a chronology between all those games; even Wolfenstein 3D took inspiration from Ultima Underworld, and the System Shock devs clearly took a few lessons from Doom, and then games like PowerSlave came along and took lessons from all of them. Then we get into the realms of weirder shit where people were trying to merge elements of Doom with elements of adventure games or RPGs, or trying to add in squad mechanics and shit. But what's important is that nobody back then was trying to match any pre-conceived notion of what an FPS game is meant to be - even the most obvious "Doom clones" sometimes tried off-the-wall shit.
It took a while to warm up to it but I really like the second and third episodes, that level in E3 (I think) where you're in the houses on the floating islands and having to jump between them at impossible angles was superb, one of the best levels in any throwback shooter.
How so? I'd say it has a very coherent visual design
On point #2, it doesn't just involve action style shooting, it needs to be front and center of what the main gameplay aspect is all about. What does the fun revolve around? The shooting.
Probably not, since UUW was March 21, 1992 and Wolfenstein 3D was May 5, 1992. Not a lot of time to take inspiration there.
Nothing, I suppose. The plot is designed to revolve around weirdness and nightmares and explain why nothing makes much sense visually, like Quake's, so it works in that regard. I think I just prefer it when these games have a bit more going on in that department, DUSK feels deliberately minimalist and abstracted in way that the likes of Heretic or SS or even Doom don't to me. Then again, maybe it's exacerbated by DUSK's overt references to Half-Life and Thief which sort of highlight the contrast between it and them.
I probably misremembered, I thought I'd read something somewhere about how id were shocked by UU's technology and quickly started scrambling to learn from it as fast they could. I might have mixed them up with some other early FPS dev around the same time; maybe Raven (since Shadowcaster feels like the worst attempt at creating an ImSim ever).
How do you define front and center? Half-life can be played pacifist except for like 2 bosses while I can go guns blazing through any immersive sim. Action style shooting is completely undefinable.
Yes, I can sit on a table but that doesn't define it as a chair does it? Define front and center? are you fucking kidding me?
I'm serious. How much shooting has to happen for it to be front and center? Is Half-life not an FPS until chapter 3 kicks off because it's got no guns?
. Point being the term FPS on its own is pretty useless (if you start including everything in first person that has weapons) and can be quibled over endlessly, kinda like that other term, RPsomething.
