Wolf hype: What kind of school is old-school FPS gaming?

With wolfenstein at the gates, its time for the last article like this. Well... ok actually I'm quite late, its released, and in the next 3 hours or less I'll be finally playing it myself. I've heard its been getting 7/10s which sounds up to par with what I predicted (critics don't think much of good shooters that pad diversity, especially without extra modes), but I dare not cloud my head with critic opinions until after I'm a good ways in myself. I'm hoping it lives up to expectations, but even if it doesn't, its been fun writing about my passion for the genre. People like me often talk about the sad state of lacking old school shooters, but when we really look back and try to think of what it means to us there are a lot of different and interesting ways to execute a shooter in a way that breaks modern style and yet feels familiar. Heck sometimes the other way around is possible, where a game is very much using modern things but comes off as linking to a different sort of design from older times (I think Metro: Last Light, Killzone ShadowFall's campaign, and even Alien Rage fit this). Looking at wolfenstein I initially believed it to be more in line with games like older military shooters, halo (minus some of its "innovations"), and maybe even half-life, but looking back on it I'm starting to see it melt together with a bunch of different ideas from a broad meaning of "old school" styles, as well as thinking about how even what it reminded me of was actual quite complex and different. In a lot of way old military shooters spawned off of half-life style games and share lots in common, but yet also feel so different. The more I think about it, the more complex the genre is, and despite being stuck in a mostly stale rush of games trying to beat COD by being COD, there's actually a lot more to reflect back on than whether or not a game has you carrying your full arsenal and a bunch of scattered magical healing kits. You don't have to look further than Uncharted and Metro to see how far different the experience is despite using easily recognizable mechanics we associate with the recent military shooters. So I'd kind of like to use this chance to talk about some of the brilliant older design philosophies we've seen throughout the genre, and the history a bit, as well as the advantages and disadvantages. Though a fair warning, I have not thoroughly played through or may not have played much at all of some of the games I might bring up. However most of them I have played a good bit, and even for the ones I have not I still talk about them because I've known about them or their reputation enough to make an example of them.

Games like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom came out to pretty much set the founding place of FPS. Back then we called games similar to them as "90's shooters" even though other mentalities were established before 2000's including Counter-strike, Arena style shooters, and of course Half-life. Still we sort the old "doom clones" differently due to clear mechanical choices that made them what they are. 90's shooters though went with a very maze-like mentality and pitted you up against constant enemies, keep up with resources (sometimes including lives), and has some of the fastest speed and strafe focused power fantasy with guns style combat. Also there was more platforming, even though that wasn't really a part in the original ID stuff considering they had no jump button. Some games like Unreal (not tournament, the one before that) got more linear and straight forward but with more open areas while others like Duke Nukem 3D just capitalized on a more sophisticated form of level design within a more believable and interactive world that was still maze-like. At least not including the 2nd chapter, which was clearly more generic. The biggest weakness of this was the lack of story, and low detail which is a combination of limited tech and the need to make a complex level design that could work with long halls and maze-like general structures. The gunplay while mostly great and superior to most could also be subjectively worse if you like slower combat, or realistic weaponry and fights.

Duke Nukem 3D remains one of the most noteworthy of 90's shooters

Then there was Half-life which set up a different trend of campaign shooters. You had more scripts, more linear game design, and slower paced movement and gunfights. Sounds like a big negative, but honestly this introduced a lot of improvements. Better story, more depth and detail in the levels, Set pieces that were often fluid and interesting in favor of the player and gameplay, and the gunplay started traveling into a new route that is somewhat like a cross between what we usually have now in military shooters and what we had in 90's shooters which made for an interesting sort of diversity. This was before these aspects got carried away, dumbed down, and just dull. Set pieces weren't so much as forced pieces you had to watch through as much as they were cool side galleries to help built the fiction and tone (like seeing a zombie attacking a scientist behind glass), or they were active gimmicks that changed up the pace in a way that was fun when left paced at the right time such as using a giant cannon for a specific part. Sometimes these parts were specially decorated for the set piece, like having the hypothetical cannon piece be within the only section of the game that had destructible terrain. Overall worlds felt more complete, mythology and lore felt more included and well executed, characters actually existed, and aliens and monsters still dominated the genre with more clear designs and interesting background to them. Actually a lot of these set pieces pretty much worked with similar mentality of boss battles. They basically gave you a greater feeling with better scope but often had more strict limits as a result, like how a boss might be only damageable by a specific weak point or with a specific weapon, but the end result left you feeling great. I honestly felt like nearly nothing I loved about older shooters was lost within this format. Guns still felt crazy, there was still resources to keep up with that made it worth your time to explore even if it was more clearly limited, and in addition to good run and gun shooting against awesome enemy types there were interesting set pieces to play out that changed the scope of battles or built on the fiction to make it more immersive. I enjoyed some of the trade offs, and the more linear nature for a more well developed world. I've got to admit though I am a bit biased as I grew up on these games, my only memory of doom at an early age involved me being lost in its level design. Turok 2, Medal of honor, Killzone, Half-life, Turok evolution, and timesplitters were what I had grown up with and appreciated as my preference of shooter. However.... you could drag a lot of those into their own categories.

Half-life helped set in motion more linear detailed experiences

I'll go back to those later though. Instead what was also happening while this craze was competing with 90's shooters was a multiplayer scene mostly spawned off of Quake, later unreal, and some modes in between mostly coming from either quake or Half-life (which was very similar to just being on quake considering it was using a modified engine of it). Games like Quake kicked off the big arena style frag fest gameplay that competitive multiplayer used to be based in. Items were scattered across maps, the action and speed was fast paced and encouraged platforming and circle strafing, and the level design was often blocky and abstract in a very odd but fun way. That was kind of it, plus some of the modes that were being somewhat invented around this form. You killed each other, did the mode's objective to score, and repeat. It sounds simple but honestly the core gameplay is much deeper than most skinner box gimmick formats of today. To be fair though whenever your game was an arena-like shooter that didn't have Quake, Unreal tournament, Timesplitters, or Goldeneye on it chances are it wasn't all that impressive or interesting. A lot of games pretty much had their own more watered down versions with interesting little nitpicks but none of the same genius pacing, level design skills, or care that went into a great arena shooter like unreal. Its like comparing Crysis 2 with COD today... sure Crysis 2 has a multiplayer, and it isn't really "bad", but its pretty much a watered down COD knock-off with its own quirks slapped over it. The result is EA is shutting down its servers this summer, and oh hey it looks like its going with a bunch of old PS2 games that clearly outlasted it. Staying back on topic though, arena shooters were like the only version of multiplayer we had save for the awesome mods. Mods like Team Fortress and Counter-strike were set up to create more of a tactical and fast paced thinking aspect layered on top of familiar pacing and gunplay to create very interesting experiences. I sadly can't say much on them as I'm far more familiar with their modern brothers, but its clear they were amazing innovations in shooters that occasionally proved to inspire someone out there with some kind of idea. Whether its CS's high penalty or inventory style, to Team Fortress influencing just about anything with classes. I'd like to include Battlefeild on here somewhere but I've got to shy off on that and say I just don't know anything about Battlefields older history other than 2 is regarded as a massive hit among series veterans.

Now back to what I was saying before.... there seems to be something odd about the influence HL created. It not only borrowed from it, but games started using the depth to their advantage to go beyond the usual settings. Instead of demons, hellish worlds, and cheesy sci-fi we began seeing historic war games, fighting on D-Day, holding guns from spy movies and nazis alike, and fighting along actual allies instead of alone or solving puzzles. The military shooter was born out of this stuff, and along side it were oddballs that felt like they feel in between such as Goldeneye, Soldier of Fortune, and of course the spiritual successor to goldeneye: timesplitters. It wasn't quite as clear cut as telling Doom from wolfenstein it was more like the difference between Doom and Hexen (First RPG/FPS hybrid?). The games felt like they had a different tone with clearer objectives, slower pacing, less puzzles and hidden bits, and a special use of set-pieces to make believable battles. and when Halo came along some edged more towards its new spin of resource management. Eventually you had things like Killzone, Far Cry, Halo, and even parts of turok evolution where it was like it was going back to silly sci-fi plots using half-life influence, but was actually in fact aiming to be more like Medal Of Honor or similar military shooters. Eventually iron sights found their way through this, as well as regenerating health, stricter inventory spaced, small differences in human AI like adding stealth, and eventually it lead up to where we are now. With that in mind though I think we can all say we can see clear differences between this evolution, and COD 1 wasn't the same as 2 and 2 wasn't the same as Modern Warfare 2, much like Killzone 1 is miles different from where 2 and 3 went. Still they none of these were exactly on the same page as Half-Life either, and so it was a weird off branch that slowly took on its own form following from the founding Half-life set up. Eventually the multiplayer we also know today was added thanks to influence from COD4 which was influenced by a mixture of other weird things from shooters and non-shooters alike, campaign quality decreased or was at least replaced by a more blockbuster presentation, and we ended up where we are today.

This is all your fault epic D-Day scene!

A lot of times when people talk about old school, they can mean several things. Some people explicitly want 90's style feeling to their games, which is sadly a tall and mostly unseen order in today's time. Some indie games may end up helping, but in general that's something likely lost among shooters. Though with that being said there will always be Serious Sam, which rides more on 90's elements than anything else even though it is its own beast in the end. Meanwhile if the talk is more about old school multiplayer, that can be quite a far reaching piece. It can range from older tactical games like counter-strike or just be about bullet sponge health thrown into an arena, to full blown fast paced explosive fragging arena FPS. Heck going back to tactical games there's the splash damage method as well where its about re-contextualizing arena style gameplay into a more objective focused style, and you get things more like Enemy territory wars or Brink out of it. I would exactly call all of that old-school, but it can be what they mean and it is certainly refreshing compared to the typical trends of now.

However I and some others grew up more in line with corridor shooters from HL1/2's style and I'm happy to say that has a better presence still left as well as more influence. Its still rare and thus it feels more in line with what we call throwback, but occasionally you can find games with values similar to them. Killzone ShadowFall felt like capturing the older pacing and variety mixed with new and mainstream ground mechanics. Metro and crysis 2/3 feel like they take their script and story influences and map design more from games like half-life while also trying to build in more sandboxy combat along with their own slightly unique mechanics whether it be a nanosuits and bows or immersive details and oxygen supply. Then there are games that just don't give a damn about any mainstream garbage and aim to just next-genify old things like Resistance 3 does or what Wolfenstein seems to be doing... mostly. Duke Nukem Forever would be a good example of a failure to follow in old influences from this style mixed with modern trends. It was just plain broken in the way it tried. Maybe the same can be said for Aliens:CM.

At the end of the day though shooters have become really complex and it becomes harder and harder to identify them by any easy sub-genre. Its no wonder people have as a result gone on to adjust the idea of Wolfenstein, Metro, Bioshock, Far cry 3, and even Dishonored as "single player" or even "story driven" FPS (more evidence that the stories aren't as easy to dismiss as most people would like to make it seem). They are far different mechanically (one is even freakin' open world!), but then again they usually appeal to the same person, and provide a lesser seen experience to the alternatively implied multiplayer shooter. This is kind of why this article was made, its becoming increasingly more difficult to talk about a game like Resistance 3 or Wolfenstein as simply "old school" and easier to sell it more on story or the fact that its only one mode. Maybe that's why the marketing felt kind of weird and hid the HUD that would have easily excited the real old wolfenstein fans. Its a game with a solid setting, story, and mechanics that differ from its competition in interesting ways that will appeal to long time fans of corridor shooter campaigns. Its also kind of why it pains me more to see some of the people, both pre-launch and after its out already, are talking down on the game as only some boring run and gun cliche. These kind of overgeneralizations would be like trying to say hockey is nothing more than an ice accident, or racing games are only about holding down the gas pedal. Its misleading overgeneralized trash talk that dismisses hard work, effort, balancing, the fiction, and player tactics. Ignorant statements like that aim to degrade a game of any sense of purpose and fun when in fact it has meaning and fun in spades. Fine I get it, not everyone like shooters and maybe someone really feels like this as they're better suited for something else, maybe that's all they can register while playing something out of their comfort zone, but that still doesn't excuse that sort of disrespect and ignorance. I tried out MS flight and it wasn't my thing, but I didn't have the idiocy to say it was just "sit and look" even if that's what I mostly felt like I was doing. There was clearly more to it, and there were way more underlying mechanics to it that didn't simply appeal to me but it would be another person's first choice for escapism after a long day. As such the same can and should be said for old school shooters. It doesn't need to reinvent the wheel, or throw gimmicks at your face all the time to break up its run and gunning for you. If its mechanics, balancing, aesthetics, story, and attitude were good enough they hold up on their own to create an engaging experience to a shooter fan.

So excited to figure out what these enemy types are like!

The genre has come a long ways, which is why its hard to see it trip over itself and forget many of its old roots and potential for going backwards and innovating from there. Its why I fuss the way I do about mainstream games. Its not that they're awful or evil, and of course I keep buying them and enjoying them for the values and individual bits that do make them interesting, but its kind of a shame a game like Resistance 3 is a bit rare. Even when shooters are the most popular and biggest thing, it seems they can't keep up with their own content and diversity to continue delivering to all fans. Now though with Wolfenstein coming up it sounds like its a celebration of older roots fused with some interesting and personal tailored bits from the developers making it. I'm excited to see perk trees for the first time in an old school FPS, I'm excited to see difficulty combined with entire health alterations and strategy bending differences that can result in alternate playthroughs, I'm excited about its action movie style story mixed in a cliche a mad science sci-fi setting, and I'm excited just to get a new and fresh face with great and pleasing mechanics and a nice attitude. It'll be fun getting a feel for each new weapon I first see, each new enemy that makes me want to observe its actions like finding some new animal species, and each new level layout and branching path as well as overturning each little stone looking for documents or whatever the collectibles will be. I hope this game succeeds both in expectations and sales to encourage such fun games, or at least a sequel that does even more interesting tricks.