Monday, March 14, 2011

Shoot first, ask questions later...or maybe not at all.

This week, I replayed a game for the N64 that I haven't really cracked open in a long time...Doom 64. After having talked about it in my recent article regarding effective video game music, I had a hankering to play through it again. I don't really play too much N64 anymore...when it comes down to it, it's probably my least favourite of the Nintendo consoles. That's not to say that it's a bad system or anything, as we all know that it has some great games and had excellent capabilities when it was released; I just prefer to fire up the NES or SNES when I want some nostalgia. Despite this fact, playing Doom 64 again this week has been a really fun experience, and it's kind of ridiculous that I've still retained my old habits from when I used to play it religiously. I still tackle enemies in the same ways, I have all the secrets still memorized and stored somewhere in my otherwise useless brain, and I still know my ways around the convoluted levels without ever getting lost.

The reason I decided to type up a quick post is directly related to what I just mentioned...convoluted levels. Playing through this game again reminded me of a picture I saw maybe half a year ago. I tracked it down quite easily:

The image on the left is taken directly out of the original Doom's first episode, Knee-Deep in the Dead, which was released as shareware. It shows a top-down representation of level E1M6 if I recall correctly...Central Processing. The image on the right is an example of FPS level design today. Unfortunately I can't really identify what game that's supposed to be from, but I don't really think that's necessary.

When you look at this, it's a pretty interesting comparison. Back in the original days of FPS gaming with Doom, Heretic, Hexen, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, Descent, and so forth, level design was much different than it is today. You'd have to locate switches, find keys, or solve puzzles to access new portions of a large level, oftentimes backtracking through old areas to reach them. The Descent series had particularly cerebral level design due to its free-flying gameplay. It was not uncommon to get lost in games such as these, and I definitely recall moving through tons of levels in past games and being stuck, unable to think of what the hell to do next or where to go. Sometimes it turned out I had just overlooked a switch that would open a new area, having not noticed some of the finer details. Other times it would be just because the levels were so damn intricate that you couldn't even believe there were more areas that you hadn't even seen yet! Most FPS games even used to have a damned map system, and I can't even remember when I saw that last...maybe Far Cry?

Most new first-person shooter games are designed solely with shooting in mind, but that makes sense doesn't it? It's a shooting genre after all, so why not move the focus more towards just plain ol' shooting? Yet it's kind of ironic that, while these games actually focus MORE on shooting, they leave much to be desired on other fronts and actually represent a step back in the FPS genre in some respects, at least as far as I'm concerned. Gone are areas that are so sprawling that you actually need to explore to make progress, in favour of a linear path that rarely (if ever) branches and only brute force hindering you rather than the overall design of the level itself. The only times you'll ever see some decent exploration in current games is when you're running around in multiplayer and trying to get a hang of the map so you know where to get the drop on people.

It's interesting, really. There has been a shift in the market towards a different design that favours a more straightforward style of gameplay. Exploration is starting to be phased out of the standard FPS formula in favour of simplicity and cinematic events. Rather than being amazed at the fact that you figured out a puzzle or section of a level and gaining a sense of accomplishment because of that, players are now treated to scripted sequences that have much the same effect in that they inform you that you're progressing. Having played both types of games, I've always found the older formula to be the more rewarding experience. In Doom 64, clearing out waves and waves of enemies and then exploring and figuring out what the hell to do is really a nice experience. Not only are you rewarded for decimating an entire swath of aggressive, cybernetic demons, but you're also merited for figuring your way through the environment and looking for clues. Secret areas are a huge portion of this, and you're rewarded for your exploration with ammo or a health boost. The game seems to test you on more of a level than "Can you shoot? OKAY GOOD!" It tests your observation skills, your memory, and in a few cases, your logic.

I'm not trying to say that all new FPS games are terrible, because they're clearly not. If they were, then they wouldn't be succeeding in the video game market as much as they currently are. What I am saying, is that this is the likely reason as to why I personally prefer older FPS games and don't really get into the new ones all that much. Although some newer shooters are touted as being groundbreaking and stunning in all respects, I find that they simply cannot hold my attention nearly as long as a game like Doom can. I've been playing Doom consistently ever since it was released back in '93, whereas I haven't touched the revamp of GoldenEye on Wii since I finished the single player portion of it, save for a few occasions to play splitscreen with friends. A robust single-player FPS experience, for me, is much more than just moving from one room to the next in an effort to reach some kind of waypoint. I genuinely miss having places to explore, secrets to search out, and the occasional puzzle or two mixed in with blasting aliens, demons, or what have you. In my opinion, first person shooter layout and design has seemingly become shallower overall, and I find that it's just not the same enthralling experience that it used to be.

What do you guys think? Do you have any particular preference for the layout of FPS games? Be sure to post your thoughts and comments!

1 comment:

  1. I like both depending on the game. A linear, story driven FPS is alright as long as they're bothering to tell a decent story instead of just being lazy.

    There's still nothing like firing up Doom and plowing through it though... that game still manages to surprise me once in a while.

    ReplyDelete