This is really based off *another messageboard* of the FPS thread that discusses how "newer" FPS games aren't as fun or interesting as the old ones. I wanted to expand that thought and turn it around to what do gamers want in each genre?

I like Bioshock a lot even though I have difficulty staying interested in playing the game. My lack of interest has to do with the fact that there are areas where I seem to need to do things I don't quite understand, and after progressing through the game, I find myself ill prepared to deal with a situation, but unable to go back and get what I need to progress further.

I like the story, the atmosphere, and the weapons in Bioshock and think it has progressed nicely from Doom, but I'll admit that Doom is easier to jump into and more addictive.

Please feel free to tackle other genres and what you like/don't like about them. I'll post about other "classic" vs "modern" games of different genres later, but I just wanted to get the ball rolling...

The new and improved King of Lamers 2003!

I'm a classic gamer, specially PC, so I see some of the recent trends as something of a detriment. Like open endedness. Far Cry seems to have been the first one to implement it more intensively, BUT, still kept the level progression bound to certain goals. Now shift to Far Cry 2 ( I know, different producer, etc, but whatever, it's a recent FPS): It's too open, it loses focus from being a shooter, and makes what could be an interesting differential that could be optional as a massive fucking chore that kills all the momentum of the game. On the opposite stretch, I'd put CoD 4 for example. You are very bound to the rails, but the pacing of it all is perfectly balanced and well tied to the storytelling.

But that all is something that relates to my second big gripe: Excessive focus on Multiplayer in detriment of storytelling and singleplayer components. Who said that these two have to be mutually fucking excludent? I've seen some news saying that Bioshock 2's team will outsource the multiplayer to another company. Damn great, since it's a game heavly focused on story. Take Unreal as an example. The first was greeted as an immensely innovative and engaging game, the second not so much, then we've had some 2-3 multi only games simply as a showcase for the engines. Sure, for some people it's enough to just shoot each other, but I need a reason, a defining plot, whatever.

As games become more and more of a mainstream entertainment medium, some aspects have to be valued and improved, and story for me is foremost on the "things to improve" list.

But i've gone on a major sidestepped rant. I'm not drunk, but I sure as shit am sleepy, can't think straight, maybe I'll continue the discussion more coherently tomorrow. :-P
Later

All work and no play makes me..., well, you know the rest.