What specifically makes an Old School FPS an Old School FPS?

[Jaesun]

I have only played a handful of older FPS games (Half Life, Unreal and Return to Castle Wolfenstien). Just to name a few.

Other than LARGE and complex area design, no health regeneration, and encounter design, what exactly *IS* missing from modern day FPS's? Weapon sounds? There are a number of things people have mentioned but I was just curious on your thoughts on this topic.

 

[Turtle-Zone 3000]

"Free" movement and no sticky cover.
(" " probably not the best word for it)

 

[Hoaxmetal]

Gnognards sperging about them.

 

[1451]

No restriction in the amount of weapons you can carry, quicksave instead of checkpoints. For me, it's mainly about the feel the weapons give off, be them real or fictional. In most modern first person games the weapons feel like they are made of plastic. Stalker being an exception.
I'm not looking necessarily for realism, the issue is not simulation against arcade. I like when the weapons feel like weapons.

Then there is the player input required to play the games. In modern fps there are one button melee takedowns, and I'm mainly referring to single player games. Not that multiplayer ones are innocent of that transgression but we have CounterStrike which represents a more traditional or archaic design and on the other side of the spectrum we have modern garbage like the newest Halo and Destiny.

I also rarely play fps so my opinions may not be what one calls accurate.

 

[Correct_Carlo]

To me it's all about level design. Old School FPS's might have had a theme and atmosphere, but they tended to be very gamey and arcade like in their level design. They had intricate level design for its own sake, including things like mazes, floating platforms, massive arenas, implausibly massive, labyrinthine complexes, and etc. They also tended to contain relatively few art assets, but tons of levels. Gameplay and "Wouldn't it be cool if....." always took precedence over realism in terms of level design. The city level from Doom 2 is a great example. It's a massive level which looks vaguely like a city, but it's more or less the same 50 art assets used over and over, just mocked up in the form of a city. Nothing functions or looks like a real city. It's all about gameplay and using the outline of a city to do fun level design type stuff.

In contrast, new school RPGs (probably beginning with Dark Forces 2, but finding the first instance of the formula that would ultimately dominate the genre of FPS for a decade and a half in Half-Life) allow realism to take precedence over level design. So while level design can occasionally be complex (especially in the early examples of "realistic" FPS level design, like "Dark Forces 2") there's nothing that will break the immersion of the experience (no endless colored keys, floating platforms, or etc.). Likewise, the level design tends to follow a narrative arch of sorts, with the character progressing through the levels, changing locales, in a linear fashion. This lead, in its most extreme form, to the "rails" shooters like "Call of Duty" which were basically just a bunch of linear set pieces.

Presently, though, I actual think linear rail shooters are outmoded (which is probably the main reason why Valve has no interest in doing Half Life 3). Now the FPS is dominated by open world "Far Cry" style games and RPG-lite type experiences.

There are also other elements, though. Old school tended to privelege gameplay over realism in all areas, including: number of enemies on screen at once, number of weapons to carry, speed, power ups, and etc.

Examples (Codex will no doubt bitch and disagree with individual examples, but that's the fun of lists):

Old School:
Heretic
Doom
Wolfenstein
Rise of the Triad
Painkiller
Duke Nukem 3D
Serious Sam
Hexen (although moving in the direction of a hybrid game)

Hybrid (transitional games, or games with elements of both):

Dark Forces
Dark Forces 2 (probably the best example of the best of both worlds: old school labyrinthine level design with new school realism)
Samurai Warrior (both original and remake)
Blood
Thief
Stryfe
Realms of the Haunting
Hexen 2

New School (linear):

Half-Life
Half-Life 2
Call of Duties
Deus Ex (all of them, although some of the original's levels were very large)
Bioshock 1, 2, Infinite
Dishonored

New School (open world)

Far Cries
Crysis
Stalker

 

[Lyric Suite]

Dues Ex had excellent level design that had nothing in common with Call of Duty or Bioshock. Like, seriously. Hell's Kitchen anyone?

Also, calling Painkiller and Serious Sam old school.

 

[Correct_Carlo]

Dues Ex had excellent level design that had nothing in common with Call of Duty or Bioshock. Like, seriously.

Yeah, it's probably more hybrid.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Good level design?

 

[Lyric Suite]

Level design is one of the keys, yes. It doesn't even matter whether the style is abstract or realistic.

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Good level design also isn't just about the layout/puzzles/encounters/pacing, it's also about inspiring the player to actively confront the world/locus in a manner that feels convincing and "real". Half-Life 1 did this really well without making a break in immersion (i.e. silly letterbox-style cutscenes or any of this nonsense). Keeping the player engaged without breaking the flow is a hallmark of excellent level design and can only be achieved if the designer remains the sole creative author of his work.

Nowadays, modern production pipelines demand a fractured and more formulated design process akin to film design. That's why modern level design really feels more like exploring a film set.

 

[sullynathan]

"Free" movement and no sticky cover.
(" " probably not the best word for it)

how many current FPS have sticky cover?

 

[Turtle-Zone 3000]

how many current FPS have sticky cover?

I don't have a number, but Deus Ex: HR and MD would be the most notable to dexers.

*Edit: Its there in other FPSs but its pretty subtle nowadays.
Far Cry 3+, Crysis 2+, Red Orchestra 2+.

 

[sullynathan]

Modern shooters probably take more skill. Not sure about you but arena shooters tend to come off as easy to me and couple that with a free save system, things are a lot easier to play. New school shooters are a bit slower with smarter AI, checkpoints and limited area which ramps up the difficulty. These two things stick out like a sore thumb whenever I play an old school vs new school FPS.

how many current FPS have sticky cover?

I don't have a number, but Deus Ex: HR and MD would be the most notable to dexers.

MD? Human Revolution is an outlier. Codex keeps confusing third person shooters with first person shooters.

 

[DraQ]

I have only played a handful of older FPS games (Half Life, Unreal and Return to Castle Wolfenstien). Just to name a few.

You should also try playing DOOMs, Hexens, Quake 1, Blood, Shadow Warrior, DN3D (though less so than previous two) and Strife.
System Shock 1 too, but it's not a traditional oldschool FPS by any means and plays more like a modern one in many ways.

Other than LARGE and complex area design, no health regeneration, and encounter design, what exactly *IS* missing from modern day FPS's? Weapon sounds? There are a number of things people have mentioned but I was just curious on your thoughts on this topic.

I'd say that other than health mechanics and area design (which is a biggie) there is the question whether you can afford to stay put during the combat.
If you're constantly running, weaving around between projectiles, melee attackers or bullet riddled geometry in order to stay alive, it's an old-school FPS, if you're just sitting behind a piece of geometry and popping anyone who shows up, it's a popamole (that's by no means exhaustive - for example tactical shooters and games focused on managing resources in the long run are something else still).

Some observations:

1. Conjunction of health regen and no penalties for staying put behind a piece of cover is especially disastrous as when you take too much damage you can simply sit it out safely tucked behind a box and wait until you regen this produces very short and simple gameplay cycles which results in simplistic and mind-numbing gameplay.
   
2. Regen alone is nowhere as disastrous because without popamole, you might not be able to take time to regen.
3. Popamole gameplay however is pretty bad even without regen if you have a relatively massive HP pool - it might result in same short gameplay cycles as massive HP pool allows you to get shot up repeatedly, so you can usually just treat it as if you regenned health and heal up for real between encounters by scrounging up medkits.
4. The above makes Quake 2 a proto-popamole which is the reason for its specific exclusion from the list of other recommended classic FPSes above.

 

[markec]

Beside good level design you also need arsenal with weapons being both fun and useful. You need a varied enemy design that forces the player to switch weapons in combat in order to address different enemy threats. If you can play entire game using only one weapon its pretty poor game design.

 

[svvvs]

Play Soldier of Fortune 1

 

[GrainWetski]

Modern shooters probably take more skill. Not sure about you but arena shooters tend to come off as easy to me and couple that with a free save system, things are a lot easier to play. New school shooters are a bit slower with smarter AI, checkpoints and limited area which ramps up the difficulty. These two things stick out like a sore thumb whenever I play an old school vs new school FPS.

Just because you make them hard by using a controller doesn't mean they're actually hard.

 

[Shadenuat]

Projectile weapons without "heat seeking" and a resource management (hp, armor, unique buffs). That leads to a slower and more strategic gameplay (and resources mean you have to make bigger balanced levels where you can distribute them), where you have to know something else than just where to camp to 1-shot enemies a-la old Counter Strike. (I had very low opinion on CS compared to UT when it became popular in clubs and still do)

Also weapon management. For example new Blizzard's Overwatch game (haven't played it, just watched some streaming), I like all these unique heroes like in RPG, but while you play 1 hero you're basically stuck with about 2-3 ways of doing damage or (more often) just spamming one attack. I'd like at least 4-5 different guns, viable for different situations + combos.
Also I noticed a terrible disparity between heroes with basic projectile weapons and heroes with rifles and sniper rifles - seemed like heroes with projectiles (like guy with a bow) were just screwed all around on most open levels. Imagine some people spawning with quake rail guns right away; at least in old shooters everyone begins with a same key1 gun.

I also prefer weapons spawning in levels, that leads to interesting situations (say UT, make a dark locked room and place bio rifle on one side, and a ripper on the other side - instant memorable encounter for players meeting there).

 

[ZagorTeNej]

-Complex level design, preferably with use of verticality. No fucking loading zones, linear corridors or arenas.

-Fun arsenal of weapons with clear strengths and weaknesses (none of that here's your assault rifle A and B).

-Variety of distinct enemies with different moving patterns, ways of attack, visual and audio design.

-Resource management (which means no health regen and ammo boxes).

-Reasonable amounts of gore.

-No 2-3 weapon limit, FPS genre is meant for mouse and keyboard, not a joypad.

-No turret sections.

-Scripted sequences reduced to a minimum, preferably to zero.

-No lengthy tutorial/scripted introduction, make a skippable cutscene/movie and put the player right into action from the start.

 

[abija]

- no artificial slow downs like having to aim down the sights for your generic medium range pew pew weapon to be precise

 

[Roguey]

Player characters that move faster than human beings actually can. Doomguy runs 57 miles per hour, other fps protagonists are comparably fast.

 

[octavius]

The evolution of Shooters have something in common with the evolution of CRPGs. They have evolved from abstract and "gamey" games to games that focus more on realism and story.
Personally I prefered the the old times when not only were computer and video games a separate medium from books and movies, but there was also very little overlap between console and computer games.

Modern AAA games that are developed for consoles and play like interactive movies hold very little interest for me.
But fortunately I have a long back log of older games (and newer non AAA games) to play, so it's not like it's something I am constantly agonized by.

 

[pippin]

Keycard hunting, mazelike levels, puzzles, secrets, etc.
Weapon limits isn't that important imo. Wolf3d has like 3 guns. In Hexen you have 3 or 4. RotT had like 3 or 4 as well (including heatseeking missiles, actually). In fact, I liked the weapon approach in ROTT, ammo in my opinion often is an unnecessary abstraction in these kind of games, especially when they aren't supposed to be a simulation of real combat. Hunting for healthpacks is more relevant in this case.

 

[TripJack]

any fps designed for mouse+kb instead of console controllers is old school

 

[Llama-Yak Hybrid]

I always looked at it in two ways:
Early FPS games were made by people who played metric shitton of RPG's, both computer and tabletop. There were people copying them, copying them with twist, trying to do something on their own(like make a simulator or tactical game or something) or doing the same but little later. All of these somewhat co-existed.

The "nu school" FPS are made by people who want to achieve "CoD sales" or at least "Far Cry(3) sales", copying the aforementioned games without a glimpse of though. Majority of what we've seen earlier has died - tactical shooters are now reduced to few multiplayer games(and then they're "tactical") and Arma, simulators - similarly, arena shooters weren't there for a long time, Battlefield turned into CoD with vehicles... The rest is visibly smaller and overshadowed by the yearly top-sellers which took over almost entirety of this genre's niche. While it would make sense that PC can have more of those niche games, it's ridden with Team Fortress and CS:GO players so it's not like they have it easier here.

You can also look at it from this side - Dungeon Master was made by people who wanted Wizardry to be tense, Ultima: Underworld was made by people who wanted Dungeon Master(like) to be more tense, Wolfenstein 3D were made by people who wanted to have something even faster and more adrenaline-pumping than that but to also run normally on something that isn't supercomputer, Doom made further step in this direction... and at some point they didn't want to make something like wizardry but fast, but something like an action movie. And so, we've ended up with "new" shooters.