The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hacing had a dig against FPS in the Return to Castle Wolfenstein topic, I thought I'd do it again here.
FPS really are the most basic and pointless of games. Sure, they're good for a bit of mindless relaxation from time to time, but people take them far too seriously.
All you have to do is point a gun at something. Where's the massive amount of technical skill in that. I've played most of them - Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Goldeneye, Resident Evil, Serious Sam and so on. They all get so boring. The enemies shuffle along at varying paces, and you wander aimlessly around, looking happy and not suspicious when a high powered rocket launcher just happens to be lying on the floor. Then you shove blue keys into the usefully marked blue slot, and congratulate yourself on your cleverness, but not for long, because some idiotic half mutated thing is shuffling at you, waving a gun. You're OK, because you have a bigger gun you found halfway down a sewer on a shelf.
Where's the skill in that? Other games are far more representative of skill. Strategy games are a great example. You actually have to think, about deployment, investment of money/ore/tiberium, and enemy strength. You don't find a tank lying around on the floor somewhere, and the enemy doesn't charge at you one at a time.
Adventure/Point and clicks are another one. Admittedly, it takes me a long time to complete one, but at least you have to think. My favourites are the two Broken Swords. Who really cares if the graphics aren't amazing, because you're interested in the gameplay. Thats what you bought the game for. Games like Grim Fadango, Monkey Island, Broken Sword, Disworld Noir - they all involve varying moderations of skill.
Now, if I've annoyed all you FPS addicts, I apologise. I'm sure you'll all come out with good quality arguments on why FPS need skill. Maybe they do. But they don't need it in the same way a Command and Conquer game would. I'm not trying to be provocative, simply realistic. Now all shout at me....
FPS really are the most basic and pointless of games. Sure, they're good for a bit of mindless relaxation from time to time, but people take them far too seriously.
All you have to do is point a gun at something. Where's the massive amount of technical skill in that. I've played most of them - Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Goldeneye, Resident Evil, Serious Sam and so on. They all get so boring. The enemies shuffle along at varying paces, and you wander aimlessly around, looking happy and not suspicious when a high powered rocket launcher just happens to be lying on the floor. Then you shove blue keys into the usefully marked blue slot, and congratulate yourself on your cleverness, but not for long, because some idiotic half mutated thing is shuffling at you, waving a gun. You're OK, because you have a bigger gun you found halfway down a sewer on a shelf.
Where's the skill in that? Other games are far more representative of skill. Strategy games are a great example. You actually have to think, about deployment, investment of money/ore/tiberium, and enemy strength. You don't find a tank lying around on the floor somewhere, and the enemy doesn't charge at you one at a time.
Adventure/Point and clicks are another one. Admittedly, it takes me a long time to complete one, but at least you have to think. My favourites are the two Broken Swords. Who really cares if the graphics aren't amazing, because you're interested in the gameplay. Thats what you bought the game for. Games like Grim Fadango, Monkey Island, Broken Sword, Disworld Noir - they all involve varying moderations of skill.
Now, if I've annoyed all you FPS addicts, I apologise. I'm sure you'll all come out with good quality arguments on why FPS need skill. Maybe they do. But they don't need it in the same way a Command and Conquer game would. I'm not trying to be provocative, simply realistic. Now all shout at me....
Page:
Wrong there is varied degree of skill i can kill all my mates and one of them always loses badly one does allright etc... if there was no skill required everone would be the same.
Ah, but can you strafe quickly, accurately aim, shooting an enemy in the head, who is also strafing before being shot yourself?
FPS has more skill than Strategy or Point Click Adventure games.
Granted, there's not always as much tactics as in these games but certainly more skill.
RTS games are generally slower paced and when the action does thicken, the skill generally becomes rapid clicking of the mouse as you try to tell your troops where to run and they'll automatically target the enemies.
One of your examples was Quake 3 - a simple go a around shoooting people game?
Well it was made for deathmatching almost exclusively.
Players evenly matched shoot each other.
Loads of skill and tactics are involved from Sniping, Hiding, Choosing the right Weapons and Trapping your opponent.
And then there's the skill in shooting more accurately than they're shooting you.
And that's in a purely deathmatch situation.
The single player game modes (like on Perfect Dark) demand more tactics from the player as well as good shooting skills.
It's clearly a genre you haven't got into properly.
FPS has more skill than Strategy or Point Click Adventure games.
Granted, there's not always as much tactics as in these games but certainly more skill.
RTS games are generally slower paced and when the action does thicken, the skill generally becomes rapid clicking of the mouse as you try to tell your troops where to run and they'll automatically target the enemies.
One of your examples was Quake 3 - a simple go a around shoooting people game?
Well it was made for deathmatching almost exclusively.
Players evenly matched shoot each other.
Loads of skill and tactics are involved from Sniping, Hiding, Choosing the right Weapons and Trapping your opponent.
And then there's the skill in shooting more accurately than they're shooting you.
And that's in a purely deathmatch situation.
The single player game modes (like on Perfect Dark) demand more tactics from the player as well as good shooting skills.
It's clearly a genre you haven't got into properly.
And I seem to have got a response on this. I have conceded that some FPS's require skill, but TBN - people really spend time perfecting strafing? Press the strafe button, and oh, I seem to have mastered it.
Of course FPSs take skill. If you had no skill at Goldeneye then you really wouldn't stand a chance at completing Aztec on 00 agent.
Stryke, I hate to say this but: You are an utter twonk! How can FPSs not require skill?!?!
If it didn't, why do people spend years perfecting their art? Why is it that it takes time to get good at them? Pointing and pressing fire is one thing, but you've got to gt profficient with the controls, learn how to anticipate movements, use the terrain to your advantage and practise techniques such as circular strafing and hopping.
Bloody hell!
If it didn't, why do people spend years perfecting their art? Why is it that it takes time to get good at them? Pointing and pressing fire is one thing, but you've got to gt profficient with the controls, learn how to anticipate movements, use the terrain to your advantage and practise techniques such as circular strafing and hopping.
Bloody hell!
Stryke wrote:
> Yep Tarrant, once again your oratory skills amaze me.
Haha! ROFL!
> Yep Tarrant, once again your oratory skills amaze me.
Haha! ROFL!
Well you remember wrong my friend, someone did say that the only thing people liked about Harry Potter was that the names were stupid. I said that if people wanted stupid names they should read Hitch-Hikers guide.
My reasons for "hating" Lord of the Rings, as you put it, was that it was dull in parts and overly discriptive. However, I was just looking for a bit of a debate and later admitted that I don't dis-like LoTR at all and I read books by Terry Goodkind that are more descrirtive than the work of Tolkien.
But hey...
My reasons for "hating" Lord of the Rings, as you put it, was that it was dull in parts and overly discriptive. However, I was just looking for a bit of a debate and later admitted that I don't dis-like LoTR at all and I read books by Terry Goodkind that are more descrirtive than the work of Tolkien.
But hey...
As eloquent as ever Tarrant. I seem to remember your reason for hating Lord of The Rings was that the names were stupid?
Page: