The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Modern shooters are completely destroying the shooter genre and just plainly miss the point.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2014 Category: Games
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,061 times Debate No: 56684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




The shooter genre was a wonderful place before modern shooters came to existence. Though I respect the people enjoying them, I cannot stand to see how one of my beloved game genres is being completely destroyed by series like Call of Duty. But what's so wrong about it anyways? Well as you all know, every genre has it's established rules that a game has to follow to qualify. Game designers work inside those rules to create a original and interesting experience. They may change them just a little bit to give us something fun. But by changing, nobody ever meant water them down and simplify and casualize them. Let's count the ways that old shooters were better than the new ones, shall we?

First of, level design.
Level design in old shooters was based mostly on two types of levels. Maze ones with lots of secrets that allowed you to survive inside a dangerous environment full of enemies trying to get to your throat. It rewarded explorations, unlike today shooters.

The second way of doing things was making an arena shooter. The game would have simplified level design but would make it up with the gameplay and guns. Instead of exploring maze we were fighting on giant arenas full of monsters. The player was rewarded this time not for exploration, but more for his actual accuracy and reflexes.

Today we mostly have corridor shooters, that involve none of the above.

Second, resource management.

In older games the ammo was more spare and health didn't regenerate, you actually had to find a health pack to not die. It meant that you actually had to explore and be more careful with what you do. It was actually involving skill, and careful planning.

Nowadays we have regenerating health and ammo that falls out of enemies everywhere, so it is far easier and less interesting.

Third, the guns.

The guns in older games were not only far more interesting than any one from the guns in the newer games, you could actually hold a lot more of them. There was also a reason for that. Your every weapon was different than the other so you could experiment with different playstyles, also as you would come into different situations involving different enemies in those games, you would sometimes prefer to use one guns above the others.

Now the guns not only don't change too much, and aren't so interesting, you can also carry only three, or even two of them. So many of them would work in the same situations. If you approach a bit different situation than the last one, don't worry, they'll just give a new gun to you. Not brilliant. And if you're blaming the setting, or supposed "realism" of those games, most of them don't do a good job at either of those.

Fourth, the enemies.

Old games had different types of enemies and bosses that acted completely differently than the others. They had different attacks, different looks, and you could approach them in different ways.

New game enemies don't change all that much. And they all do the same thing.

Fifth, the movement.

In old games, you had to actually move through your surroundings avoiding enemies and their shots.

In the new games you're basically stuck to one position, behind a wall, sometimes you can get of the wall for a bit to get out from the grenade range, and get stuck by another wall. You don't move all that much and mostly shoot behind the cover, which is not as skill-based as actually avoiding your enemies.

Sixth, the art style.

I don't think that I need to talk about this all that much, old games= colors, new games= brown and gray.

I'm awaiting a worthy opponent for a worthy debate.


I accept this debate and will wait for the next round to NOSCAPE YOU DAAWG! lol jk. But thank you for starting this debate.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you con for accepting the debate.

So I've already counted the ways old shooters were better in my previous post, so allow me to make some statements why old shooters were plain better an Modern shooters are in comparison horrible.

Old shooters had superior level design.
They had better resource management.
They had better guns.
They had better enemies.
They had better movement.
They had better art style.

All those are obviously just statements that sound like personal opinion but I've explained them in my previous post, so please refer to that when referencing them.

I would like to give some proof for my statements by giving examples of games.
Excuse me for not giving sources as you have to play the game yourself to see the difference.

Old shooters had superior level design.
- Shadow Warrior, Duke Nukem, Doom I, Doom II, Rise of The Triad, Blood, Quake had all labyrinths instead of corridors that games like Call of Duty served us. Games like Painkiller and Serious Sam preferred arenas.

Old shooters had superior resource management.
-All the game mentioned had more spare ammo, made you explore the level and constantly check how many bullets you have to not suddenly become defenseless. They also had health pickups instead of regenerating health which also forced the gamer to be more careful with it's ammo. The new games give you both ammo and health constantly so you don't need to worry so much about that.

Old shooters had better guns.
-For that I will use Shadow Warrior as an example.
Shadow warrior had as our arsenal
*A katana
*Two uzis that you could dual wield
*Quad Barrel Riot Shotgun
*Grenade Launcher
*Sticky Mines
*Rail Gun
*Guardian Head
*Ripper Heart

It's true that they might be more weapons in modern games, but that's not the point. The weapons here are different from one another, you use them in different ways, in different situations. You might prefer to use Quad Barrel Riot Shotgun for bigger, closer enemies, Two uzis for less powerful closer enemies, grenade launcher for enemies in a distance, sticky mines for throwing, or just luring enemies into "traps", a Rail Gun for the boss fights and so on and so forth. It's true that there are also different types of weapons in modern games, but the truth is that they don't allow for carrying more than two or three guns which limits your ways of doing things. And yes there is a difference between a sniper rifle, shotgun, grenade launcher and assault rifle, but different types of weapons are given to you mostly before, or after certain fights so you can use it at this certain encounter. Mostly you're given different types of assault rifles, which don't really change all that much.

Old shooters had better enemies

For this I will use the enemies from, again, The Shadow Warrior. As we can see, shadow warrior has a variety of different colorful enemies that differentiate from one another. While modern shooters enemies mostly don't change all that much, they tend to stay inside the spectrum of different types of soldiers that use almost the same strategy.

Old shooters had better movement.
You can take any shooter I gave from the list as an example. Those shooters allowed you to move between enemies, trying to avoid their shots and moving on the battlefield from different angles. New shooters have cover based system that makes the player far more static which is less skill based.

Old shooters had better art style.

Not only did they have more colorful environments but even enemies tend to be better looking. Doom two for example, had a lot more interesting color palette. Even though it wasn't as detailed as games later like Shadow Warrior or Duke Nukem 3D.

I await your response con.


Let's start off with counter arguments from Round 1 & 2.

1. Level design has changed quite dramatically and I think it is pointed in a positive direction. With more and more technological advancements coming our way level design will continue to become more sharp and detailed which is why companies such as Intel, AMD and Nvidia have all had to come out with new graphics cars every year because the graphics is becoming more neater. Counter Strike: Source Dust II [] - Counter Strike: Global Offensive []

As you can see quite a dramatic change. Although it took 8 years to get to that point the game looks very beautiful and amazing. Maps nowadays are more centered around graphical elements such as detail and lighting. But game devs also focus on aspects such as movement. By movement I mean they focus on creating levels that make the game flow smoothly rather than having unnecessary items in the way. Game devs have such as Infinity Ward have also focused on creating good camping maps for their games such as COD:MW2 in Afghan tones of places to hide and Karachi is filled with spider holes.

2. Resource management is that big of a deal but game devs are now trying to focus on realistic parts of games and that's why you hardly find floating health packs and ammo packs which is why they have also health regen otherwise players would die easily. Counter Strike: GO is one of my favs because there isn't any ammo packs and health packs hovering and there is no health regen adding that realisticy of the game.

3. Nowadays guns have evolved from late 1980s when most old shooters were created such as Half Life and COD WaW were created. Now devs focus on creating that real military action to games. DICE have succeeded in doing this by creating Battlefield 4 which in my opinion is a military simulation. Gun animation has evolved in that game and also real life guns such as AK5C are now included in a lot of games. [] - []

Guns nowadays have a very metallic look which guns should be going for.

4. Enemies have evolved over the years although Black Ops 1 had the worst AI ever. AI nowadays are more evil than ever and they look more badass and meaner than ever instead of having that weird alien looking thin in DOOM. []

As I said before Game devs are trying to focus on realistic military games not that alien encounter stuff.

5. Movement has changed so much over the years in terms of FPS. Instead of having that still camera when walking and looking left to right, now we have camera sway when we look left to right. We also have blur when we jump, crouch and look L to R. Sprinting animations have come a long way from when your gun goes of screen and your camera sways left to right. Now we have realistic sprinting were you can see your gun moving during sprint. []

6.Art styles. As you said not much to say about this. Old = Pixely AF New= Slim, Relistic.

You mentioned new games are grey and dark and old are colorful.

7. Guns you said are old are still included modern day shooters:
*Grenade Launcher
*Stick Bombs (Semtex)
*Rail Gun

Remember to not point out weaknesses in your argument.

Back to you Pro
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you very much con.

1. Focusing level design on graphics itself is NOT a good way to go. Graphics are the least of importance in a game. So watering down, and simplifying gameplay for the sake of game looking good is the worst thing you could have done. Bad looking games with good gameplay can't be considered bad games. Good looking games with horrible gameplay are mostly considered broken. A book isn't good because it has a good cover, a book is good because it has good writing. A game isn't good because it has good graphic, a game is good because it has good gameplay.

There were no "unnecessary items" when it comes to old level design, everything was where it should have been. You were put into a labyrinth full of dangers, and your only way to survive was to find hidden weapons and items that allowed you to face the dangers ahead.

Also, you should not compare single player level design to multiplayer level design because those are two different things. And even then old games gave us great arenas full of secrets and different ways that we could approach enemies to use.

2. Devs are not doing a really good job of realistically recreating the military setting. They didn't recreate them in game mechanics, they also didn't recreate them well in the story of actual setting. Modern shooters are really over the top and sacrifice the gameplay in name of "cinematic experience". And even if, you can still make a realistic shooter without completely simplifying the resource management mechanics. Floating health packs and ammo are nothing more than a visual difference. A health pack or an ammo pack can just lay on the ground and still work the same way as they worked before. So I don't see your argument here.

3. You're still talking about visual differences, which to be fair, is really not that important in a game. While when talking about mechanics, the guns got again , watered down and simplified.

4. Again, you're talking about visual differences which don't matter in games. When talking about game mechanics, the enemies use mostly the same strategies and don't differ too much. And change of setting is not an excuse for making your enemies samey and less interesting. And even if we're speaking visual design the old games are superior. They have more, original and interesting designs of enemies instead of boring soldiers that all look the same.

5. First, you could look up in down in most of the old shooters, and even if you don't count Duke Nukem 3D, Shadow Warrior etc, you could always count games like Serious Sam and Quake 2. Second, crouching and jumping in FPS is nothing new. Third, visual differences, again don't change the fact that our movement is limited by cover based system. Although it looks nice, it doesn't really change the game in any way.

6. The fact that old shooters had pixels instead of full 3D doesn't change anything. You still can make interesting colorful environments with today's graphics.
Oh and yes, those games had cave, and interior areas that used a lot of color brown, but that doesn't change the fact that they were overall more colorful than the new ones.

And most important, every of these games had a little bit different art style so you really couldn't confuse Doom with Shadow Warrior, or Shadow Warrior with Duke Nukem 3D.

7. Yes but they don't have that character like in the old games. Old weapons worked on a very different principle that new weapons work. Grenade and Rocket launchers in the past were far more powerful and far more original than those today. The grenade launcher you're talking about now isn't the grenade launcher I'm talking about.

Back to you Con.


I haven't yet given an arguement I have only given counter arguements so I will wait till Round 4 to counter argument points made by Pro.

1. Definition of Shooter games - "Shooter games are a sub-genre of action game, which often test the player's speed and reaction time. It includes many subgenres that have the commonality of focusing on the actions of the avatar using some sort of weapon. Usually this weapon is a gun, or some other long-range weapon." As we can clearly see the debate is titled "Modern shooters are completely destroying the shooter genre and just plainly miss the point." You say modern day shooters miss the point, when modern day shooters having the same aspects of an old shooter in cooperated in their games, so you have basically already stuffed up majorly with the question.

2. Nowadays it's more about taste in shooter games. Personally I don't like Killzone Shadow Fall, probably the worst game I have ever played. But in saying that in is a different genre of shooter. Killzone SF is a Action, Sci-fi. So there are many different genres of shooters and topic all of which have different fans. So you might like only old shooters such as Duke Nuke Em and Quake whereas other people such as myself prefer new modern day shooters like Call of Duty (the new ones) and GTA 5.

3. Games devs also have very different art styles to one another, Dean Hall (DayZ) likes to design realistic games whereas game dsigners such as Robin Walker and John Cook (TF2) like to go for a comical video game.

4. Players have got so much better over the years in terms of design. This can be for AI and Multi-player characters. Characters don't have that boxy look on their legs anymore [] - [] and they're now created with much more detail.

That's all I have to say right now I will save some of my points for Round 4 & 5. Back to you Pro
Debate Round No. 3


1. Although that definition is correct, and it's true that modern shooters fit that definition, that was never my point. What I was trying to say is that modern shooters are stepping away from the definition, doing a significantly worse job than old shooters in following it by simplifying the genre and being just overall, bad examples of it.

2. Still I don't see a cont-argument. Only think you've said right now is that people have different tastes, and that has nothing to do with our debate right now. Also GTA V is not really a shooter. It's a free-roam action game. Although it does have shooter elements, the shooter aspect is not the core gameplay element.

3. That's true, still I don't see what it has to do with my point about gun, but the statement is still true.

4. AI for Multi-player characters is not important at all taking into account that multiplayer is mostly based on competitive play between the players, and not the player and AI. The technology gets better and better, but that doesn't mean that older designs were worse than the new. It's like talking that sprite art is worse than 3D art when they are both different things, done with care and originality. Sometimes the older models have mole details and interesting quirks put into them than the new ones. And you're using an example from a game that isn't really that far from a pretty oldschool experience when it comes to games.

Waiting for your arguments Con.


Firstly I want to extend because I have only seen two arguments from Pro and two from me I extend my argument to this round and I will CA Pros argument in round 5
Debate Round No. 4


I do not present any new arguments for this round as I think as I've already proven my point so I'll just wait for Con arguments.

Thank you very much for this very interesting debate con.


RedRum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by eLkathebaloon 2 years ago
Well then, maybe interested in my other debate?
Posted by CloudApex 2 years ago
I would accept, but too subjective.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF