THE BORE

General => Video Game Bored => Topic started by: Tieno on November 14, 2010, 04:00:07 AM

Title: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Tieno on November 14, 2010, 04:00:07 AM
(http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/BITmX-650x519.jpg)

seems like an improvement :smug

consoles :bow2
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: The Sceneman on November 14, 2010, 05:00:10 AM
so true. Doom is still a better game than all these shithouse Medal of Duty games
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: iconoclast on November 14, 2010, 05:01:22 AM
so true. Doom is still a better game than all these shithouse Medal of Duty games

Yep. Except I think you meant Duke 3D.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: The Sceneman on November 14, 2010, 05:03:25 AM
true. Duke 3d>Doom.

Doom>Turds of Duty
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: archie4208 on November 14, 2010, 08:15:01 AM
[youtube=560,345]BSsfjHCFosw[/youtube]

:rock
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 14, 2010, 08:39:49 AM
Yep. Thank god the genre doesn't suck anymore. Fuck Doom.


Modern FPS.
 :bow2



Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: BobFromPikeCreek on November 14, 2010, 09:10:26 AM
Yep. Thank god the genre doesn't suck anymore. Fuck Doom.


Modern FPS.
 :bow2





You're breaking my heart.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 14, 2010, 09:13:04 AM
You're breaking my heart.

I get tired of the whining. (Not aimed at anyone necessarily here but these threads are a dime a dozen on GAF or reddit where this particular one blew up) If people wanted Doom like shooters there would be a lot more Serious Sam threads on boards.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 14, 2010, 09:59:04 AM
John Carmack will come soon to save us from the awful modern FPS's with Doom 4. :bow
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Diunx on November 14, 2010, 10:04:31 AM

Duke 3d>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halol >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gears of bore.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Herr Mafflard on November 14, 2010, 10:14:11 AM
why no mention of sandbox shooters like Halo Reach? 2010 doesn't only comprise of the CoDs of this world.

image is an obvious troll, but it should be renamed to Doom vs CoD.

believe it or not, but shooters have evolved. On one side of the spectrum you have the arcadey cinematic fun of the CoD games and then on the other side you have the 'sims' like ARMA II. And then everything in between like Bioshock and Halo and Half-Life.

I don't think that image proves anything. If you don't like playing shooters these days, I think that has more to do with your changing sensibilities as a gamer than anything to do with the game industry itself.

Look at Bioshock Infinite, if that doesn't excite you for the future of shooters, then I think there's no helping you.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 14, 2010, 10:17:21 AM
why no mention of sandbox shooters like Halo Reach? 2010 doesn't only comprise of the CoDs of this world.

image is an obvious troll, but it should be renamed to Doom vs CoD.

believe it or not, but shooters have evolved. On one side of the spectrum you have the arcadey cinematic fun of the CoD games and then on the other side you have the 'sims' like ARMA II. And then everything in between like Bioshock and Halo and Half-Life.

I don't think that image proves anything. If you don't like playing shooters these days, I think that has more to do with your changing sensibilities as a gamer than anything to do with the game industry itself.

Look at Bioshock Infinite, if that doesn't excite you for the future of shooters, then I think there's no helping you.
:bow2

More importantly even as in all things, its market driven. If people buy other types of shooters you get other types of shooters.

Borderlands, Stalker, Left 4 Dead, Vanquish, New Deus Ex, Uncharted, FarCry, Mirror's Edge, Brink, Hell,  even Fallout 3 and New Vegas etc are all different kind of FPS games or 3rd person shooters. If people buy them, you will get more of that. If they don't you won't. Its pretty simple.  Its no different than any other genre on the market.

Haters gonna hate in other words.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: duckman2000 on November 14, 2010, 11:26:50 AM
the stupid focus on multiplayer

Yeah
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Tieno on November 14, 2010, 12:03:15 PM
Well isnt ID making RAGE?

Also its easy to forget games like Far Cry 2, Crysis...
damn straight, forgettable games

nice troll kosma :bow2
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 14, 2010, 12:19:39 PM
Well isnt ID making RAGE?

RAGE is going to poop all over the Halo, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor games.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 14, 2010, 12:21:24 PM
Well isnt ID making RAGE?

RAGE is going to poop all over the Halo, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor games.

RAGE does look like it will be good.

But then people said the same about Doom 3 and look how that went down.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Eel O'Brian on November 14, 2010, 12:23:35 PM
i'm sure it'll be a swell ride, but the design work really does look a bit generic after 3 years of post-apocalyptic games
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 14, 2010, 12:27:43 PM
i'm sure it'll be a swell ride, but the design work really does look a bit generic after 3 years of post-apocalyptic games

That's not necessarily what bothers me about Rage although I hear what you are saying there. What more disturbs me is that iD hasn't actually made a good non-MP game in forever. Their design never really progressed that far honestly from the original Doom. I'm hoping they actually have some gameplay in this one.

I mean I think the game looks neat. And they are saying all the right things. And I hope its really good. But I'm curious what the actual moment to moment gameplay is going to feel like. Because neat graphics via Carmack only get you so far.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Eel O'Brian on November 14, 2010, 12:34:16 PM
i expect a lot of driving to different monster closets with some auto combat mixed in along the way, very basic gameplay, some "WOW" eye candy moments, and me never ever touching the MP again after trying it out for an hour
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 14, 2010, 12:37:12 PM
I'd actually be more interested if they announced a new Fallout just via that engine. Fallout with the depth of a good RPG and actual decent combat would be pretty awesome.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 14, 2010, 12:37:36 PM
The gameplay looked really good at Quakecon, lots of different enemies that attacked you in different ways and some absolutely massive bosses.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Eel O'Brian on November 14, 2010, 12:40:14 PM
yeah, that's right, i forgot you actually saw it running, your comments give me some hope that it won't be just a bog standard shooter with vehicle sequences
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 14, 2010, 12:42:25 PM
yeah, that's right, i forgot you actually saw it running, your comments give me some hope that it won't be just a bog standard shooter with vehicle sequences

Looks fairly open, like Borderlands but with a bigger world. Not quite Fallout 3 levels of open-world though. There were quests and dungeons, side stuff to make money, and quite a few different kinds of weapons.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Yeti on November 14, 2010, 01:00:34 PM
The map on the left makes me think of Metroid Prime, I'm sure you guys all love that game right? :smug
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: duckman2000 on November 14, 2010, 01:20:48 PM
Quake 4 was pretty hot, at times. Enemies are the same dullards they have always been, but hey, there are plenty of reasons to use nailguns and black hole guns there.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Third on November 14, 2010, 01:26:10 PM
Valve is the only developer out there that can make good fps games.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: iconoclast on November 14, 2010, 06:36:46 PM
Far Cry 2 is awful. You get chased by distinguished mentally-challenged fellows in a jeep every ten seconds whenever you're trying to go somewhere. Game's unplayable due to that shit. Otherwise it would be decent.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: The Sceneman on November 14, 2010, 06:38:57 PM
hopefully Duke Nukem Forever will have level design on par with Duke 3D. A man can dream.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 14, 2010, 06:57:25 PM
Far Cry 2 is awful. You get chased by distinguished mentally-challenged fellows in a jeep every ten seconds whenever you're trying to go somewhere. Game's unplayable due to that shit. Otherwise it would be decent.

Far Cry 2 is pretty cool.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 14, 2010, 06:59:45 PM
I think Far Cry 2 has a lot of great ideas that are wrapped up in a game that isn't very fun to actually play. But I respect it from a design perspective. I hope they realize their potential in the next one.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Joe Molotov on November 14, 2010, 10:51:53 PM
(http://i56.tinypic.com/1zcl578.jpg)
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Diunx on November 14, 2010, 10:58:50 PM
:lol
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Positive Touch on November 15, 2010, 12:53:55 AM
:rofl

also ban everyone who says duke3d>>>doom.  that shit isn't even close, come on.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 15, 2010, 01:20:08 AM
People are hating on Doom 3 in this thread? What? Why? It's exactly like Doom 1 and 2.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Positive Touch on November 15, 2010, 02:20:18 AM
no... no it's not
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 15, 2010, 02:22:29 AM
The only real problems that Doom 3 had were respawning enemies and the flashlight.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Howard Alan Treesong on November 15, 2010, 02:35:51 AM
I dunno, seems to me labeling that map as JRPG would really be more accurate if you labeled it 'Final Fantasy'.  WRPG dungeons are awesome, of course, won't dispute that side of the picture, but if people would pull their heads out of Square's butt they'd find plenty of JRPGS with dungeons like this:

(http://imgur.com/7z863.jpg)

But I guess the same could be said for the 2010 label and Call of Duty, so, yeah.

oh God, flashbacks to that floor in Strange Journey are like my personal 'Nam
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 15, 2010, 03:46:06 AM
no... no it's not

Endless amounts of corridors with demons around every corner, and you blast them? The only difference is that the game is much darker (as in, you can't see shit), and while I understand the hatred for the flashlight is a valid complaint, it's not exactly game-breaking. You can still hit things with the flashlight.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: brawndolicious on November 15, 2010, 05:18:14 AM
Far Cry 2 is awful. You get chased by distinguished mentally-challenged fellows in a jeep every ten seconds whenever you're trying to go somewhere. Game's unplayable due to that shit. Otherwise it would be decent.
The trick is to learn the shortcuts on the map so that you often can get from Point A to B without ever engaging any Jeeps.  If you want, you can even just blow past most guard posts since you'll be long gone before they get in their cars.  It'll take a bit of time before you learn the maps well enough that you'll feel safe building up some momentum when driving though.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 15, 2010, 09:14:46 AM
no... no it's not

Endless amounts of corridors with demons around every corner, and you blast them? The only difference is that the game is much darker (as in, you can't see shit), and while I understand the hatred for the flashlight is a valid complaint, it's not exactly game-breaking. You can still hit things with the flashlight.

There's also a mod that attaches the flashlight to all your guns.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 15, 2010, 12:09:21 PM
no... no it's not

Endless amounts of corridors with demons around every corner, and you blast them? The only difference is that the game is much darker (as in, you can't see shit), and while I understand the hatred for the flashlight is a valid complaint, it's not exactly game-breaking. You can still hit things with the flashlight.

There's also a mod that attaches the flashlight to all your guns.

Even without this, the game is still an amazing HD-ification of the classic Doom gameplay.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: archie4208 on November 15, 2010, 12:50:06 PM
I dunno, seems to me labeling that map as JRPG would really be more accurate if you labeled it 'Final Fantasy'.  WRPG dungeons are awesome, of course, won't dispute that side of the picture, but if people would pull their heads out of Square's butt they'd find plenty of JRPGS with dungeons like this:

(http://imgur.com/7z863.jpg)

But I guess the same could be said for the 2010 label and Call of Duty, so, yeah.

Thanks for reminding me how awesome Strange Journey was.  :bow2
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: AdmiralViscen on November 15, 2010, 10:09:56 PM
no... no it's not

Endless amounts of corridors with demons around every corner, and you blast them? The only difference is that the game is much darker (as in, you can't see shit), and while I understand the hatred for the flashlight is a valid complaint, it's not exactly game-breaking. You can still hit things with the flashlight.

There's also a mod that attaches the flashlight to all your guns.

Even without this, the game is still an amazing HD-ification of the classic Doom gameplay.

No it isn't
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: AdmiralViscen on November 15, 2010, 10:54:55 PM
And it was linear as hell too.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 15, 2010, 11:38:08 PM
In my mind, Doom was a game about being an unstoppable badass. Doom 3 was about fumbling around in dark listening to audiologs like some fucking chump.

Sorry you played it that way :-\ I felt like an unstoppable badass in Doom 3.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: The Sceneman on November 16, 2010, 02:09:07 AM
I havent played Doom 3 but there is no way it could be on par with Doom 1 and 2. People never talk about Doom 3.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 16, 2010, 12:28:49 PM
I havent played Doom 3 but there is no way it could be on par with Doom 1 and 2. People never talk about Doom 3.

I'll level with you. It isn't memorable and the pacing can fall apart in some areas, but I couldn't tell you the difference between Doom 2 and 3. They play, more or less, exactly the same.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 16, 2010, 12:38:37 PM
People don't really talk about it because it was an old-school style PC FPS in an era of Halo, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 16, 2010, 12:41:32 PM
People don't really talk about it because it was an old-school style PC FPS in an era of Halo, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor.

I think you're on the money, here. It's the antithesis of modern FPS game design.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Stoney Mason on November 16, 2010, 12:46:16 PM
People don't really talk about it because it was an old-school style PC FPS in an era of Halo, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor.

I don't think people talk about it because honestly it wasn't that memorable. The engine never really caught on. And there was no lasting impact from the MP.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 16, 2010, 01:21:18 PM
Painkiller was an old style FPS in the same era and people still talk about it.

Doom 3 had one expansion, Painkiller had an expansion and two sequels.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Great Rumbler on November 16, 2010, 01:37:10 PM
I like Doom 3, it's fun and has great atmosphere, but I can't play it much because I get too scared.  :'(
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: cool breeze on November 16, 2010, 01:51:31 PM
Painkiller was an old style FPS in the same era and people still talk about it.

Doom 3 had one expansion, Painkiller had an expansion and two sequels.

the only thing people talk about when it comes to painkiller is painkiller black (includes the expansion and original game).  The sequels are mostly ignored.  It's like why people never talk about Serious Sam 2

Doom 3 was most memorable when it got leaked.  I remember it blowing my mind and almost breaking my computer at the same time.

also, Half Life 2 came out not too long after it.  on consoles, Halo 2 was coming out as well.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 16, 2010, 01:58:57 PM
It got to a point (very early) where you can predict when some stupid shit will pop out.

Yeah, just shoot in any large shadowed corner and you're bound to hit something. I don't think Doom 3 was scary at all, I play it like Painkiller.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: AdmiralViscen on November 16, 2010, 07:42:57 PM
Doom 3 has less enemies at any one time than the old ones and no fun level layouts. It plays completely different. Game is gay
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Positive Touch on November 16, 2010, 08:29:28 PM
Doom 3 has less enemies at any one time than the old ones and no fun level layouts. It plays completely different.

spot on.  old-schoold doom (which should only be played on manly ultra-violence or nightmare difficulties) had you running around mazes while constantly fighting off huge hordes of enemies.  at its best a pro would be strafing around fireballs like a ballet dancer to manipulate enemies into fighting themselves then picking off the survivors.  doom 3 was walking though corridors and charging toward the glowing spawnpoints that appeared so you could kill enemies before they could move.

doom 1&2, the finest games ever made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>busted-ass doom 3



still looking forward to doom 4
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: originalz on November 16, 2010, 10:50:30 PM
Someone once said that playing Doom was like playing a twinstick shooter but in FPS, constantly moving, shooting, and dodging.
Title: Re: FPS map design: 1993 vs 2010
Post by: Raban on November 17, 2010, 10:33:12 AM
still looking forward to doom 4

Agreed.