The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Why do they do it?
Whilst waiting for my copy of Call of Duty to arrive (God bless Special Reserve) I got in the mood for some WW2 action on my PC. Unable to find Battlefield 1942, I put in CoD's old brother - Medal of Honour : Allied Assault.
I'd had to reinstall it a while ago so all my saved games were gone, which meant starting from scratch. No big deal. Had fun in Africa, then the great U-Boat missions, then D-Day and the great team work of the Normandy levels. Then boom. "You're by yourself on this mission, Powell"
It's that stupid level with the French resistance, where you're by yourself the entire time, save for a few minutes with that useless pilot, and all the following levels you're by yourself taking on the entire German army with just a few rounds of ammunition and two grenades. Oh really. Never done THAT before. Let's see, one man against an entire army. Nope, totally original.
It didn't make up the entire foundations of Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Unreal... the list goes on. It WAS the very foundation of all those games. Every single first person shooter has you alone. By yourself. No friends.
And that stinks. It's been done to death. And the games that don't have you alone every single level (MOH, Star Trek Elite Force) only have a few before sending you off on crappy stealth missions or boring old, run o' the mill "you vs everyone" levels.
They nearly always start with great team play levels, but then quickly move to "here's a gun, there's the enemy, go get 'em, tiger!" Why? Do they get sick of making these great levels, and decide "Hey, well, y'know... we've made three of these great levels, but it's taken months... can't we just throw in a few Doom levels, with no-one working with you, to, y'know, fill in the gaps? We'll be working until next Christmas if we want friendly AI on every level. Excellent, then we're agreed. Lazy programming from now on. Pass me the pizza and vodka, will you?"
Sadly, I don't think that's too far from the truth. It doesn't take Albert Einstein to realise that programming entire levels with friendly AI troops, with triggered scripted events complete with recorded voice samples takes more time than just throwing the player in the level by himself and saying "off you go". AI is a difficult thing to programme, and you can get away with certain things with enemy AI, since all they have to do, when it boils down to it, is shoot at you and run for cover.
Friendly AI, however, has to cover you, stay out of your line of fire, not run out into enemy covered open ground, throw grenades at groups of enemies whilst making sure you and the other team mates don't get caught in the blast, and give or take orders. They're with you from start to finish, so the AI has to be seen to be near perfect. Developers can get away with certain aspects of odd behaviour from the enemy because you just kill them and move on. You don't have time to inspect them with a magnifying glass, saying "Oh dear, he didn't go for the higher ground, what a fool!" They're pretty much there to be slaughtered, and save for displaying the odd bit of strategy, don't need to be seen to be doing much, other than shooting and being shot themselves.
Friendly AI is right next to you, working with you. If they make any kind of mistake you instantly think "Which opium addicted monkey programmed THIS crap?" Working in team mates for each level takes time and skill, and sadly, in this day of deadlines, it's all too easy for a developer to simply say "Screw it, we don't have time, we'll just do some Doom levels."
Unfortunately, things will continue this way. A team based WW2 shooter with dozens of levels would take years. Even the amazing Call of Duty has the occasional "by yourself" mission, I've heard. Call of Duty is a prime example of how to do things right. You're part of a team, and you fight as a team. You get orders from your commanding officer, and you work with your fellow soldiers together to get the job done. It has a real sense of team work and camaraderie. If you haven't already, at least check out the demo, it's an amazing experience.
So why am I making such a big fuss over this? What's so good about team work in first person shooters? Well, I'll tell you. It's because doing things by yourself, the "you vs everyone else" thing has been done to the point where it's impossible to get anything new out of it. Really, how many different ways can you play the same game? They may change the setting from time to time (Kingpin was a big change in that it wasn't a sci-fi game, and heck, it even had aspects of team work, however, it was short lived, only the odd level used it) but FPS games will always follow the same formula - one character against an army of aliens/terrorists/criminals walking through corridors. There may be someone giving you instructions over an intercom, there may even be a few scripted events where you work with someone to get a task done, but it always boils down to the same thing. You, alone, shooting people. It's been done so many times now that it’s beyond stale, not to mention how unrealistic it is. First person shooters have changed very little since the days of Doom/Quake. Sure, they may look better, sound better and in some cases be a lot more fun than they were all those years ago, but apart from scripted events, something copied (and overused) from Half Life, what's new? You still shoot stuff, you still have to find object A to get object B to do something. You still have to find medpacks and ammo.
Team work opens up a whole new series of ideas. Just working with three or four other people makes shooting stuff, the core of any FPS, totally different. You can circle around while your allies draw it's fire. They can cover you while you make a dash to the super charged laser that's lying on the ground. It can add to the realism, in that you don't have to be Superman anymore, you can now be killed more easily, but since you're not the only target for the enemy, you have as much chance as the next man. And that, to me, makes all the difference. A fire fight breaking out between five allied soldiers and a dozen SS troops now has more meaning. You have to duck and take cover, use your ammo sparingly. Gone are the days of acting out scenes from The Terminator, where you can simply take a stroll through enemy lines, blowing away everything in sight, taking heavy fire from mini guns without blinking. You have to think. You have to be part of a team. You have to survive. THAT'S what's so great about team work, they can make you part of the team. You can be killed easily, making the fighting more tense, more gritty, and therefore more fun.
Developers need to stop with this lone gunman crap. It's been done again and again and again. Team work is the way to go, not throwing in the occasional stealth mission. Get it right and team work can be amazing. Get it wrong and, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Every other gaming genre has evolved at least a little, especially platformers. First person shooters seem to be stuck in the glory days. Who says all FPS games have to have you by yourself, walking through corridors? Just because it was done back in the days of Doom, when very little else could be done, doesn’t mean it has to happen NOW. Each game simply improves on the last, instead of coming up with new, exciting ideas. They made the leap to 3D, but very little else has changed. I don't know, since Doom 3 looks to be more of the same, maybe Halo 2 or Half Life 2 can deliver some gaming goodness. I'm not saying "you against the world" can't be fun, it's just about as new and exciting and Friday night bingo.
Whilst waiting for my copy of Call of Duty to arrive (God bless Special Reserve) I got in the mood for some WW2 action on my PC. Unable to find Battlefield 1942, I put in CoD's old brother - Medal of Honour : Allied Assault.
I'd had to reinstall it a while ago so all my saved games were gone, which meant starting from scratch. No big deal. Had fun in Africa, then the great U-Boat missions, then D-Day and the great team work of the Normandy levels. Then boom. "You're by yourself on this mission, Powell"
It's that stupid level with the French resistance, where you're by yourself the entire time, save for a few minutes with that useless pilot, and all the following levels you're by yourself taking on the entire German army with just a few rounds of ammunition and two grenades. Oh really. Never done THAT before. Let's see, one man against an entire army. Nope, totally original.
It didn't make up the entire foundations of Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Unreal... the list goes on. It WAS the very foundation of all those games. Every single first person shooter has you alone. By yourself. No friends.
And that stinks. It's been done to death. And the games that don't have you alone every single level (MOH, Star Trek Elite Force) only have a few before sending you off on crappy stealth missions or boring old, run o' the mill "you vs everyone" levels.
They nearly always start with great team play levels, but then quickly move to "here's a gun, there's the enemy, go get 'em, tiger!" Why? Do they get sick of making these great levels, and decide "Hey, well, y'know... we've made three of these great levels, but it's taken months... can't we just throw in a few Doom levels, with no-one working with you, to, y'know, fill in the gaps? We'll be working until next Christmas if we want friendly AI on every level. Excellent, then we're agreed. Lazy programming from now on. Pass me the pizza and vodka, will you?"
Sadly, I don't think that's too far from the truth. It doesn't take Albert Einstein to realise that programming entire levels with friendly AI troops, with triggered scripted events complete with recorded voice samples takes more time than just throwing the player in the level by himself and saying "off you go". AI is a difficult thing to programme, and you can get away with certain things with enemy AI, since all they have to do, when it boils down to it, is shoot at you and run for cover.
Friendly AI, however, has to cover you, stay out of your line of fire, not run out into enemy covered open ground, throw grenades at groups of enemies whilst making sure you and the other team mates don't get caught in the blast, and give or take orders. They're with you from start to finish, so the AI has to be seen to be near perfect. Developers can get away with certain aspects of odd behaviour from the enemy because you just kill them and move on. You don't have time to inspect them with a magnifying glass, saying "Oh dear, he didn't go for the higher ground, what a fool!" They're pretty much there to be slaughtered, and save for displaying the odd bit of strategy, don't need to be seen to be doing much, other than shooting and being shot themselves.
Friendly AI is right next to you, working with you. If they make any kind of mistake you instantly think "Which opium addicted monkey programmed THIS crap?" Working in team mates for each level takes time and skill, and sadly, in this day of deadlines, it's all too easy for a developer to simply say "Screw it, we don't have time, we'll just do some Doom levels."
Unfortunately, things will continue this way. A team based WW2 shooter with dozens of levels would take years. Even the amazing Call of Duty has the occasional "by yourself" mission, I've heard. Call of Duty is a prime example of how to do things right. You're part of a team, and you fight as a team. You get orders from your commanding officer, and you work with your fellow soldiers together to get the job done. It has a real sense of team work and camaraderie. If you haven't already, at least check out the demo, it's an amazing experience.
So why am I making such a big fuss over this? What's so good about team work in first person shooters? Well, I'll tell you. It's because doing things by yourself, the "you vs everyone else" thing has been done to the point where it's impossible to get anything new out of it. Really, how many different ways can you play the same game? They may change the setting from time to time (Kingpin was a big change in that it wasn't a sci-fi game, and heck, it even had aspects of team work, however, it was short lived, only the odd level used it) but FPS games will always follow the same formula - one character against an army of aliens/terrorists/criminals walking through corridors. There may be someone giving you instructions over an intercom, there may even be a few scripted events where you work with someone to get a task done, but it always boils down to the same thing. You, alone, shooting people. It's been done so many times now that it’s beyond stale, not to mention how unrealistic it is. First person shooters have changed very little since the days of Doom/Quake. Sure, they may look better, sound better and in some cases be a lot more fun than they were all those years ago, but apart from scripted events, something copied (and overused) from Half Life, what's new? You still shoot stuff, you still have to find object A to get object B to do something. You still have to find medpacks and ammo.
Team work opens up a whole new series of ideas. Just working with three or four other people makes shooting stuff, the core of any FPS, totally different. You can circle around while your allies draw it's fire. They can cover you while you make a dash to the super charged laser that's lying on the ground. It can add to the realism, in that you don't have to be Superman anymore, you can now be killed more easily, but since you're not the only target for the enemy, you have as much chance as the next man. And that, to me, makes all the difference. A fire fight breaking out between five allied soldiers and a dozen SS troops now has more meaning. You have to duck and take cover, use your ammo sparingly. Gone are the days of acting out scenes from The Terminator, where you can simply take a stroll through enemy lines, blowing away everything in sight, taking heavy fire from mini guns without blinking. You have to think. You have to be part of a team. You have to survive. THAT'S what's so great about team work, they can make you part of the team. You can be killed easily, making the fighting more tense, more gritty, and therefore more fun.
Developers need to stop with this lone gunman crap. It's been done again and again and again. Team work is the way to go, not throwing in the occasional stealth mission. Get it right and team work can be amazing. Get it wrong and, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Every other gaming genre has evolved at least a little, especially platformers. First person shooters seem to be stuck in the glory days. Who says all FPS games have to have you by yourself, walking through corridors? Just because it was done back in the days of Doom, when very little else could be done, doesn’t mean it has to happen NOW. Each game simply improves on the last, instead of coming up with new, exciting ideas. They made the leap to 3D, but very little else has changed. I don't know, since Doom 3 looks to be more of the same, maybe Halo 2 or Half Life 2 can deliver some gaming goodness. I'm not saying "you against the world" can't be fun, it's just about as new and exciting and Friday night bingo.
Not as long as something ELSE that I own. Muawhahahahaha! This carrot, see? 'Tis long.
that's a long post!
Socom is also cool. I can't believe this got call of duty today but the discs are follty so I have to return it can you believe it.
Rainbow 6 is the cure
World War games are horrible when it's just you. The only thing that would make a game fun on your own is if it was fun and addictive, and just plain cool, laden with effects and things that cause a few gallons of surplus saliva.
Yes but the single missions are just... so plain and boring. Sure, they're fun, but it's NOTHING you haven't done before. Wow, run around by yourself and shoot people. Someone deserves the Nobel prize for coming up with THAT!
allied assault is a great game, friendly AI or no friendly AI
Why do they do it?
Whilst waiting for my copy of Call of Duty to arrive (God bless Special Reserve) I got in the mood for some WW2 action on my PC. Unable to find Battlefield 1942, I put in CoD's old brother - Medal of Honour : Allied Assault.
I'd had to reinstall it a while ago so all my saved games were gone, which meant starting from scratch. No big deal. Had fun in Africa, then the great U-Boat missions, then D-Day and the great team work of the Normandy levels. Then boom. "You're by yourself on this mission, Powell"
It's that stupid level with the French resistance, where you're by yourself the entire time, save for a few minutes with that useless pilot, and all the following levels you're by yourself taking on the entire German army with just a few rounds of ammunition and two grenades. Oh really. Never done THAT before. Let's see, one man against an entire army. Nope, totally original.
It didn't make up the entire foundations of Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Unreal... the list goes on. It WAS the very foundation of all those games. Every single first person shooter has you alone. By yourself. No friends.
And that stinks. It's been done to death. And the games that don't have you alone every single level (MOH, Star Trek Elite Force) only have a few before sending you off on crappy stealth missions or boring old, run o' the mill "you vs everyone" levels.
They nearly always start with great team play levels, but then quickly move to "here's a gun, there's the enemy, go get 'em, tiger!" Why? Do they get sick of making these great levels, and decide "Hey, well, y'know... we've made three of these great levels, but it's taken months... can't we just throw in a few Doom levels, with no-one working with you, to, y'know, fill in the gaps? We'll be working until next Christmas if we want friendly AI on every level. Excellent, then we're agreed. Lazy programming from now on. Pass me the pizza and vodka, will you?"
Sadly, I don't think that's too far from the truth. It doesn't take Albert Einstein to realise that programming entire levels with friendly AI troops, with triggered scripted events complete with recorded voice samples takes more time than just throwing the player in the level by himself and saying "off you go". AI is a difficult thing to programme, and you can get away with certain things with enemy AI, since all they have to do, when it boils down to it, is shoot at you and run for cover.
Friendly AI, however, has to cover you, stay out of your line of fire, not run out into enemy covered open ground, throw grenades at groups of enemies whilst making sure you and the other team mates don't get caught in the blast, and give or take orders. They're with you from start to finish, so the AI has to be seen to be near perfect. Developers can get away with certain aspects of odd behaviour from the enemy because you just kill them and move on. You don't have time to inspect them with a magnifying glass, saying "Oh dear, he didn't go for the higher ground, what a fool!" They're pretty much there to be slaughtered, and save for displaying the odd bit of strategy, don't need to be seen to be doing much, other than shooting and being shot themselves.
Friendly AI is right next to you, working with you. If they make any kind of mistake you instantly think "Which opium addicted monkey programmed THIS crap?" Working in team mates for each level takes time and skill, and sadly, in this day of deadlines, it's all too easy for a developer to simply say "Screw it, we don't have time, we'll just do some Doom levels."
Unfortunately, things will continue this way. A team based WW2 shooter with dozens of levels would take years. Even the amazing Call of Duty has the occasional "by yourself" mission, I've heard. Call of Duty is a prime example of how to do things right. You're part of a team, and you fight as a team. You get orders from your commanding officer, and you work with your fellow soldiers together to get the job done. It has a real sense of team work and camaraderie. If you haven't already, at least check out the demo, it's an amazing experience.
So why am I making such a big fuss over this? What's so good about team work in first person shooters? Well, I'll tell you. It's because doing things by yourself, the "you vs everyone else" thing has been done to the point where it's impossible to get anything new out of it. Really, how many different ways can you play the same game? They may change the setting from time to time (Kingpin was a big change in that it wasn't a sci-fi game, and heck, it even had aspects of team work, however, it was short lived, only the odd level used it) but FPS games will always follow the same formula - one character against an army of aliens/terrorists/criminals walking through corridors. There may be someone giving you instructions over an intercom, there may even be a few scripted events where you work with someone to get a task done, but it always boils down to the same thing. You, alone, shooting people. It's been done so many times now that it’s beyond stale, not to mention how unrealistic it is. First person shooters have changed very little since the days of Doom/Quake. Sure, they may look better, sound better and in some cases be a lot more fun than they were all those years ago, but apart from scripted events, something copied (and overused) from Half Life, what's new? You still shoot stuff, you still have to find object A to get object B to do something. You still have to find medpacks and ammo.
Team work opens up a whole new series of ideas. Just working with three or four other people makes shooting stuff, the core of any FPS, totally different. You can circle around while your allies draw it's fire. They can cover you while you make a dash to the super charged laser that's lying on the ground. It can add to the realism, in that you don't have to be Superman anymore, you can now be killed more easily, but since you're not the only target for the enemy, you have as much chance as the next man. And that, to me, makes all the difference. A fire fight breaking out between five allied soldiers and a dozen SS troops now has more meaning. You have to duck and take cover, use your ammo sparingly. Gone are the days of acting out scenes from The Terminator, where you can simply take a stroll through enemy lines, blowing away everything in sight, taking heavy fire from mini guns without blinking. You have to think. You have to be part of a team. You have to survive. THAT'S what's so great about team work, they can make you part of the team. You can be killed easily, making the fighting more tense, more gritty, and therefore more fun.
Developers need to stop with this lone gunman crap. It's been done again and again and again. Team work is the way to go, not throwing in the occasional stealth mission. Get it right and team work can be amazing. Get it wrong and, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Every other gaming genre has evolved at least a little, especially platformers. First person shooters seem to be stuck in the glory days. Who says all FPS games have to have you by yourself, walking through corridors? Just because it was done back in the days of Doom, when very little else could be done, doesn’t mean it has to happen NOW. Each game simply improves on the last, instead of coming up with new, exciting ideas. They made the leap to 3D, but very little else has changed. I don't know, since Doom 3 looks to be more of the same, maybe Halo 2 or Half Life 2 can deliver some gaming goodness. I'm not saying "you against the world" can't be fun, it's just about as new and exciting and Friday night bingo.
Whilst waiting for my copy of Call of Duty to arrive (God bless Special Reserve) I got in the mood for some WW2 action on my PC. Unable to find Battlefield 1942, I put in CoD's old brother - Medal of Honour : Allied Assault.
I'd had to reinstall it a while ago so all my saved games were gone, which meant starting from scratch. No big deal. Had fun in Africa, then the great U-Boat missions, then D-Day and the great team work of the Normandy levels. Then boom. "You're by yourself on this mission, Powell"
It's that stupid level with the French resistance, where you're by yourself the entire time, save for a few minutes with that useless pilot, and all the following levels you're by yourself taking on the entire German army with just a few rounds of ammunition and two grenades. Oh really. Never done THAT before. Let's see, one man against an entire army. Nope, totally original.
It didn't make up the entire foundations of Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Unreal... the list goes on. It WAS the very foundation of all those games. Every single first person shooter has you alone. By yourself. No friends.
And that stinks. It's been done to death. And the games that don't have you alone every single level (MOH, Star Trek Elite Force) only have a few before sending you off on crappy stealth missions or boring old, run o' the mill "you vs everyone" levels.
They nearly always start with great team play levels, but then quickly move to "here's a gun, there's the enemy, go get 'em, tiger!" Why? Do they get sick of making these great levels, and decide "Hey, well, y'know... we've made three of these great levels, but it's taken months... can't we just throw in a few Doom levels, with no-one working with you, to, y'know, fill in the gaps? We'll be working until next Christmas if we want friendly AI on every level. Excellent, then we're agreed. Lazy programming from now on. Pass me the pizza and vodka, will you?"
Sadly, I don't think that's too far from the truth. It doesn't take Albert Einstein to realise that programming entire levels with friendly AI troops, with triggered scripted events complete with recorded voice samples takes more time than just throwing the player in the level by himself and saying "off you go". AI is a difficult thing to programme, and you can get away with certain things with enemy AI, since all they have to do, when it boils down to it, is shoot at you and run for cover.
Friendly AI, however, has to cover you, stay out of your line of fire, not run out into enemy covered open ground, throw grenades at groups of enemies whilst making sure you and the other team mates don't get caught in the blast, and give or take orders. They're with you from start to finish, so the AI has to be seen to be near perfect. Developers can get away with certain aspects of odd behaviour from the enemy because you just kill them and move on. You don't have time to inspect them with a magnifying glass, saying "Oh dear, he didn't go for the higher ground, what a fool!" They're pretty much there to be slaughtered, and save for displaying the odd bit of strategy, don't need to be seen to be doing much, other than shooting and being shot themselves.
Friendly AI is right next to you, working with you. If they make any kind of mistake you instantly think "Which opium addicted monkey programmed THIS crap?" Working in team mates for each level takes time and skill, and sadly, in this day of deadlines, it's all too easy for a developer to simply say "Screw it, we don't have time, we'll just do some Doom levels."
Unfortunately, things will continue this way. A team based WW2 shooter with dozens of levels would take years. Even the amazing Call of Duty has the occasional "by yourself" mission, I've heard. Call of Duty is a prime example of how to do things right. You're part of a team, and you fight as a team. You get orders from your commanding officer, and you work with your fellow soldiers together to get the job done. It has a real sense of team work and camaraderie. If you haven't already, at least check out the demo, it's an amazing experience.
So why am I making such a big fuss over this? What's so good about team work in first person shooters? Well, I'll tell you. It's because doing things by yourself, the "you vs everyone else" thing has been done to the point where it's impossible to get anything new out of it. Really, how many different ways can you play the same game? They may change the setting from time to time (Kingpin was a big change in that it wasn't a sci-fi game, and heck, it even had aspects of team work, however, it was short lived, only the odd level used it) but FPS games will always follow the same formula - one character against an army of aliens/terrorists/criminals walking through corridors. There may be someone giving you instructions over an intercom, there may even be a few scripted events where you work with someone to get a task done, but it always boils down to the same thing. You, alone, shooting people. It's been done so many times now that it’s beyond stale, not to mention how unrealistic it is. First person shooters have changed very little since the days of Doom/Quake. Sure, they may look better, sound better and in some cases be a lot more fun than they were all those years ago, but apart from scripted events, something copied (and overused) from Half Life, what's new? You still shoot stuff, you still have to find object A to get object B to do something. You still have to find medpacks and ammo.
Team work opens up a whole new series of ideas. Just working with three or four other people makes shooting stuff, the core of any FPS, totally different. You can circle around while your allies draw it's fire. They can cover you while you make a dash to the super charged laser that's lying on the ground. It can add to the realism, in that you don't have to be Superman anymore, you can now be killed more easily, but since you're not the only target for the enemy, you have as much chance as the next man. And that, to me, makes all the difference. A fire fight breaking out between five allied soldiers and a dozen SS troops now has more meaning. You have to duck and take cover, use your ammo sparingly. Gone are the days of acting out scenes from The Terminator, where you can simply take a stroll through enemy lines, blowing away everything in sight, taking heavy fire from mini guns without blinking. You have to think. You have to be part of a team. You have to survive. THAT'S what's so great about team work, they can make you part of the team. You can be killed easily, making the fighting more tense, more gritty, and therefore more fun.
Developers need to stop with this lone gunman crap. It's been done again and again and again. Team work is the way to go, not throwing in the occasional stealth mission. Get it right and team work can be amazing. Get it wrong and, well, you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Every other gaming genre has evolved at least a little, especially platformers. First person shooters seem to be stuck in the glory days. Who says all FPS games have to have you by yourself, walking through corridors? Just because it was done back in the days of Doom, when very little else could be done, doesn’t mean it has to happen NOW. Each game simply improves on the last, instead of coming up with new, exciting ideas. They made the leap to 3D, but very little else has changed. I don't know, since Doom 3 looks to be more of the same, maybe Halo 2 or Half Life 2 can deliver some gaming goodness. I'm not saying "you against the world" can't be fun, it's just about as new and exciting and Friday night bingo.