Board Thread:Warhammer 40k Video Games/@comment-216.80.140.168-20140624020305/@comment-6078851-20140701032209

when it comes to shooters i also prefer older games, but i don't actually like halo (after the 1st one), cod (i've only played mw1), moh, and their ilk, so don't think that i'm saying they're good, cause in my opinion they're well made games but not particulary fun (gimme perfect dark over cod any day :) ) but just because they have differing mechanics from older games doesn't make them any less of a true fps. realism can make a game fun but my issue with cod and such is that realism seems to be the main aim of those games, and it does indeed detract from their fun. regen, sights etc only remove the fun if you don't like the games they're in (or you don't like such games because they have those mechanics).

true a lot of the fun (and frustration) of older shooters stems from running around with next to no health, but as much fun occurs in shooters with a regen mechanic, because the flipside of regenerating health is constantly having to survive against tons of enemies, after which you need a breather to let your heart-rate drop back down from the frenetically hectic action, before piling-in to the next ton of enemies.

fps shooters today are capable of a far higher degree of frantic action than their predecessors and some might argue that that makes todays shooters true fps's and old-school ones not, but neither side is right: if a game is only a shooter and only in the 1st person then it's a true fps, the only difference between them is whether you like this shooter or that shooter.