- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ninja/post/10393
“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.
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.