Are FPS the beat'em ups of this generation

[cyberninja45]

pokoko said:

cyberninja45 said:

miz1q2w3e said:
I thought it was platformers back then.

Yeah platformers were very popular back then, but they were never quite as repetitive and transitioned  smoothly into the 3d era, beat em ups however did not.

Platformers are the very essence of repetitive.  Most of the time the levels were absolutely static, so you were really just trying to memorize how to progress.  I don't see how they can possibly be left out of this discussion.  It's the same exact thing.

The advancement of technology is what made the FPS popular, as previous generations couldn't do the genre real justice.  In that regard, I'm almost certain the FPS is here to stay.  On the other hand, tech improvements doomed the classic beat'em up, as they really were extremely limited.  Fun, yeah, I loved Double Dragon, but 3D environments meant an evolution away from the basic forumula.  I suppose games like Devil May Cry were the next step.

I have no idea why people feel the need to disparage the FPS genre.  The platforming saturation of the NES and SNES literally had me bored with gaming (until I found FF6).  The surge from the FPS genre went a long way in making me happy with this generation.  They take me back to the days of reflex gaming that I loved with the Atari, as opposed to the memory based gaming of the NES, where all you had to do was learn timing and you could beat some games with your eyes closed.

Not really platformers use the levels to differentiate itself from other platformers, in other words the real enemy in games like mario brothers and donkey kong are the levels not the goombas and so on. Its kind of hard to explain but let me put it like this, if you take the enemies of out Super mario you would still have a decent platformer because of the levels, if you take the enemies out of a  beat em up (or most fps) there isn't much of  a game left to play, that's where the repetitiveness of ploughing through enemies really show