I'm not a fan of complexity. And that's why the fps games on newer consoles sort of piss me off. I prefer playing Perfect Dark on my N64, rather than COD or any other fps like Quantum of Solace on my friends' consoles. Wii's fps games like Metroid aren't bad and the design of how you play seems like a good idea, but it's bit hard to control. I sort of have a bit of trouble with the PS3 COD World At War, and always prefer the N64 original FPS'. I just loved the Z button which really made you feel like you were shooting down people. GO NINTENDO 64 SHOOTING GAMES!
Obviously gen 3 consoles are better, but i think what you mean is what our preference is. I prefer gen 3 FPS because of the graphics, length ect. n64 ones are good but...you know...theyre a bit iffy
i went to a forum once and a guy said he hasn't been gaming for quite a while since the 16bit days. i told him he never really missed much. a guy joins into the conversation and refutes that he missed a lot. current gaming hasn't done much to what gaming was in the past. gaming today is a reflection of games from the past with new gimmicks. all fps is a model of something from the past. this means developers have become untalented with designing new games for their fans and have been too focused on the technology rather then on their creativity. what made the fps games from the past the best wasn't on the technology but the creativity. golden eye for n64 had to work with limited data space and used their creativity to make the game feel like a james bond character as well as the feel of an fps. today, all the developers do is copy the idea of golden eye and add modernity. lame! what is funny about fps [and other games] today is that there is no longer a restriction [technologically] on designing games, yet all the games feel the same. we as gamers have been eating carbon copies after carbon copies of ideas over and over again. to answer your question without reading that crap, no.
I actually didn't like the N64 shooting games...having said that, most FPS games in Gen 3 have good graphics and regenerating health. Regen health makes them so boring! The only games I've experienced on gen3 that was in anyway challenging were Resistance 1 and FEAR. Having said that, why are you disregarding gen2 FPS? There were some great ones for PS2, Gamecube, and even one for the Xbox! (I actually enjoyed the first Halo immensely)
a shooter is a shooter, if it has bad graphics that's ok, i'm into the story and gameplay. a great shooter that lasts 3 hours is much better than a bad shooter that lasts 3 days
perfect dark was sooooo good on n64. i didn't really like it on x360 though. it had alright graphics and the story was really good and had really cool weapons. and it went for really long too.
well to bring this thread back on topic, yes and heres the long answer: It's been said before that graphics don't make a game and i agree. They don't. But by todays standards if you even see one pixel in a new fps game people go ZOMG! and smack themselves in the head for paying $100 for something that isn't aesthetically pleasing. In my opinion if you have a game with good graphics then you should go with it. It may not be why you play it but its a contributing factor to why you like it. As for the gameplay itself, think about it. Technological advancements mean we have more multiplayer, more weapons, more story. Goldeneye was relatively short and has you going awwww. But with mass effect when your half way through the game it'll feel like you've finished goldeneye 20 times.
