Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Nintendo Fans Alliance. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
FPS Maps: 1993 vs 2010; what a crock.
Topic Started: Apr 1 2011, 04:42 PM (740 Views)
Golem
Member Avatar
Corrigible Carburetor

So, have you seen this image?

http://i.imgur.com/BITmX.jpg

Alright, so I'll let it slide that they're exaggerating the amount of cutscenes in contemporary games to a ridiculous extent. What I'm more concerned about is the insinuation that linearity is naturally bad for an FPS map. I mean, Doom mazes are cool and all, but that's not the only way to do things, right?

It seems to me that this image is just resentful that console FPSes are really popular right now, and it's misplacing that resentment onto linear map design.
Edited by Golem, Apr 1 2011, 04:43 PM.
Quoth the raven, "~teehee~"
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Go to Top
 
Kester
Member Avatar
Minus World
I don't know enough about modern FPS games...but uhh...wasn't doom linear too? Like, you had to get the keys to get the next keys and so on? Or maybe I'm not fully understanding the point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Go to Top
 
BOWSER102
Member Avatar
King of Koopas

Doom, I would not consider linear, at least not within the context of that diagram's argument. It has linear objectives, perhaps, but the levels are designed pretty well open and your progress isn't peppered with cutscenes.

Goldeneye and Perfect Dark are mostly nonlinear in their level design and often their objectives, too. Still, there are a handful of linear levels in there that I can think of.

Half-Life, a 90s game, is one of the most successful FPS of all time and it's linear as hell. So this comparison could have been called "FPS Maps: 1993 vs 1998."

It really depends on the kind of First-Person Shooter. It looks like the "FPS Maps: 1993 vs 2010" graph is specifically taking a shot at story-focused FPSs.
Let's look at the time frame here; 1993 vs 2010: In 1993, FPS were in their infancy, and you really only had one type of FPS- the unlock door, shoot badguy-style fragfest, i.e. Doom and Wolfenstein. As video games have evolved, and interest in implementing (and the expectation for) all-encompassing narratives in them, the FPS has evolved as well. It's impossible for a first-person shooter that is trying to make cinema-like story a central focus to adhere to the same rules of Doom or whatever other games that the 1993 diagram was referencing. We expect cutscenes to be just around the corner to move the story along. Killzone necessitates linearity. It simply ain't Killzone if its maps are like Unreal Tournament, sorry. The same could be said for many others. Games like Half-Life and Bioshock were inventive in their use of interactive cutscenes that don't halt gameplay.. but there were many cutscenes nonetheless. Why? Because there's going to be an inherent linearity to FPSs with stories that the gamemakers are striving to tell.

That being said, the comparison does fail to represent the different types within the genre that aren't linear and obviously don't follow the '2010' depiction, such as the Quake and Unreal series, or more recent ones like Left 4 Dead. How about Metroid Prime? Adventure, yes, but a first-person shooter nonetheless.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Go to Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · Video Games · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Hall of People We Like:
Studio 64