Games like 'Dusk', 'Amid Evil', and 'Into the Pit' are shining examples of a new FPS subgenre: the "boomer shooter" inspired by games like 'Doom' and 'Quake'.
“Boomer shooter” is the latest term to follow the likes of “Roguelike” or “Soulslike” in the realm of hyperspecific gaming subgenres. It applies to first-person shooters that intentionally harken back to the classic PC games of the late ‘90s like Doom and Quake.
I hope that genre is the next to return. I think that people are mostly split between warfare simulators and these older shooters. On the one hand you have a heavy tactical simulation, and on the other you have a fast paced, low development overhead game that costs 25% of what the AAA warfare simulator runs.
Arena shooters are in the middle, and most people that play them just jump up to warfare simulators.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying it’s hard to find enough people that didn’t go one way or the other to make arena game development worth it.
Arena Shooters also had extremely high skill ceilings and steep learning curves. Good aim was only a small part of the game. Knowing the map, i.e. where and when power weapons and power ups spawn, controlling both item spawns as well as enemy spawn points; that’s what distinguished a good player from a bad one.
If you wanted to git gud you had to suffer through countless hours of getting destroyed. I don’t know if today’s gamer is still up for that. However, games like Counter-Strike and League of Legends are more popular than ever and those are definitely not easy to get into.
You bring up a good point. The typical cost/benefit analysis. I agree with your assessment of Arena shooters. There’s a LOT of VERY nuanced stuff to have to learn. I think that’s why on one side you’ll see people doing simpler FPS and on the other side you’ll see full investment into tactical warfare simulation. I think the space in between doesn’t provide enough return (as compared to tactical warfare sim) and it has too high of a cost (as opposed to retroFPS). Again this is just the ramblings of an old know-nothing. I’m nobody special when it comes to this subject, so I may be completely wrong.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc…
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.
Comments.
No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc…)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
I hope that genre is the next to return. I think that people are mostly split between warfare simulators and these older shooters. On the one hand you have a heavy tactical simulation, and on the other you have a fast paced, low development overhead game that costs 25% of what the AAA warfare simulator runs. Arena shooters are in the middle, and most people that play them just jump up to warfare simulators. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying it’s hard to find enough people that didn’t go one way or the other to make arena game development worth it.
Arena Shooters also had extremely high skill ceilings and steep learning curves. Good aim was only a small part of the game. Knowing the map, i.e. where and when power weapons and power ups spawn, controlling both item spawns as well as enemy spawn points; that’s what distinguished a good player from a bad one.
If you wanted to git gud you had to suffer through countless hours of getting destroyed. I don’t know if today’s gamer is still up for that. However, games like Counter-Strike and League of Legends are more popular than ever and those are definitely not easy to get into.
You bring up a good point. The typical cost/benefit analysis. I agree with your assessment of Arena shooters. There’s a LOT of VERY nuanced stuff to have to learn. I think that’s why on one side you’ll see people doing simpler FPS and on the other side you’ll see full investment into tactical warfare simulation. I think the space in between doesn’t provide enough return (as compared to tactical warfare sim) and it has too high of a cost (as opposed to retroFPS). Again this is just the ramblings of an old know-nothing. I’m nobody special when it comes to this subject, so I may be completely wrong.
Then there’s tf2 the middle group youre looking for
They need to give Unreal Tournament the Rocket League treatment. It’d work perfectly.