[THIS IS A RANT - YOU'VE BEEN WARNED]
The old-school shooters from the 90's, where it was all about shooting; not boring cutscenes, not flashy visuals, or snore-fest vehicle / on-rails sections. I know 90's shooters and KF are totally different styles of FPS, but the point still stands that in both KF and most 90's shooters, 99.99% of the time you have a gun in your hands and are shooting things. Can anyone name ANY point in any of the Doom games or Duke Nukem 3D, besides the title and intermission screens, where you aren't able to shoot enemies? Running out of ammo doesn't count.
Modern shooters put way too much effort into taking you out of the shooting part, instead forcing you to drive a vehicle, watch a cutscene, or play an on-rails section where, yes, you are shooting, but it bores you to sleep because your freedom to move is taken away. When I play a first person shooter, I want to be shooting stuff most of the time; the occasional cutscene is nice to build the story, and the occasional vehicle / turret section (if it's done right) helps break the monotony, but when half of my play time is spent doing something other than shooting at enemies with a gun, then no, it's not a good thing.
I think that's why I enjoy Killing Floor so much. The ONLY time when you aren't able to kill enemies is during trader time or when you die. Maybe I'm a psychopath, but I want to kill people while on foot with a gun in my hands when I play an FPS. Modern shooters try too hard to be something other than what they're meant to be, because supposedly, it's a bad FPS when you're shooting 100% of the time. Take a look at Doom, or any shooter from the 90's; you are shooting 100% of the time except during the intermission screen, but yet those aren't considered bad games.
It just confuses me when companies pour so much effort into sections of a level that pull the player out of the experience. I think the recent failure that was Duke Nukem Forever has opened people's eyes to just what the FPS genre has turned into: all flash and no content, or at least very poor content.
The old-school shooters from the 90's, where it was all about shooting; not boring cutscenes, not flashy visuals, or snore-fest vehicle / on-rails sections. I know 90's shooters and KF are totally different styles of FPS, but the point still stands that in both KF and most 90's shooters, 99.99% of the time you have a gun in your hands and are shooting things. Can anyone name ANY point in any of the Doom games or Duke Nukem 3D, besides the title and intermission screens, where you aren't able to shoot enemies? Running out of ammo doesn't count.
Modern shooters put way too much effort into taking you out of the shooting part, instead forcing you to drive a vehicle, watch a cutscene, or play an on-rails section where, yes, you are shooting, but it bores you to sleep because your freedom to move is taken away. When I play a first person shooter, I want to be shooting stuff most of the time; the occasional cutscene is nice to build the story, and the occasional vehicle / turret section (if it's done right) helps break the monotony, but when half of my play time is spent doing something other than shooting at enemies with a gun, then no, it's not a good thing.
I think that's why I enjoy Killing Floor so much. The ONLY time when you aren't able to kill enemies is during trader time or when you die. Maybe I'm a psychopath, but I want to kill people while on foot with a gun in my hands when I play an FPS. Modern shooters try too hard to be something other than what they're meant to be, because supposedly, it's a bad FPS when you're shooting 100% of the time. Take a look at Doom, or any shooter from the 90's; you are shooting 100% of the time except during the intermission screen, but yet those aren't considered bad games.
It just confuses me when companies pour so much effort into sections of a level that pull the player out of the experience. I think the recent failure that was Duke Nukem Forever has opened people's eyes to just what the FPS genre has turned into: all flash and no content, or at least very poor content.
