Your Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming

[Wizardry]

Ok, looks like I have to replay Wizardry 8 because I really don't remember it being that much different from Might and Magic 6-8 and as much as I loved M&M it wasn't reallt THAT much different from Morrowind/Oblivion. It was more complex, obviously, but not different. That was long ago so I may be mistaken of course.
It's turn-based... Battles can take 30+ minutes each... You have a party... It's nothing like Might and Magic 6-8... It's definitely nothing like Morrowind/Oblivion...

Obvious troll and all that.

[J Arcane]

I think balance in singleplayer games is overrated. It makes me sad when (for example) things get nerfed from singleplayer game to singleplayer game sequel. I'd rather be able to be overpowered in a singleplayer game than be totally balanced, but that may or may not make me weird. I just think it makes thing more fun in my eyes. I do have to recognise though that a total lack of balance may make a game impossible to complete, though.
OH GOD YES.

I couldn't agree more emphatically if I tried. "Balance" is for multiplayer (and even there I think it gets oversold as a virtue by a long shot). Same with "exploits" and even "cheating".

It's a singleplayer game. The only good measure of a singleplayer experience is if I'm having fun. If I'm having fun in a way the designer didn't intend, then fuck him, doesn't matter. Call it an unintended feature. What you do NOT do is push out mandatory patches to fuck with it, or ban people from cheating in singleplayer.

Because the bottom line is: It's a singleplayer game. It's not hurting anyone. Anyone at all. There's no competition here, no other players to grief. If I want to use the Cougar Magnum for every level, that's my prerogative. If I find the shortcut through the level that wasn't supposed to be there, again, my decision. If I want to dupe those coins, again, my fucking decision.

There is a point, I think, where a game should be out of it's creators hands for the player to do what they will with. I hate when designers interfere in singleplayer experiences after release and wind up changing the game, especially in a Steam environment where those patches become mandatory. It's also why I hate "achievements", because they've become an excuse for this kind of post-hoc dickery, a way to shift singleplayer issues into the realm of multiplayer by pretending there's a real competition to be had in these exercises in mindless tedium.

Nobody cares about your gamerscore, and nobody cares that someone playing by themselves in a singleplayer game decides to do things a little differently than intended. Stop it, developers.

[Wizardry]

Of course it hurts people. It hurts those people who happen to play with the unbalanced features. Just because you aren't one of them doesn't mean that the developers shouldn't release patches. That's a selfish attitude.

[J Arcane]

Of course it hurts people. It hurts those people who happen to play with the unbalanced features. Just because you aren't one of them doesn't mean that the developers shouldn't release patches. That's a selfish attitude.

Oh brother. That's a bit nanny state, isn't it? "I'm patching this game for your own good?"

If I get through the game easier than you, exactly what bloody harm am I doing to your fun. Inducing jealousy?

[imirk]

Oh brother. That's a bit nanny state, isn't it? "I'm patching this game for your own good?"

If I get through the game easier than you, exactly what bloody harm am I doing to your fun. Inducing jealousy?

There are people who can only have fun if they are playing in the most optimal fashion possible, having one overpowered outlier of a weapon/tactic will reduce the fun these people can have, likely quitting the game once they've figured it out, I think it is better to have balance so the player has choices in how to deal with a situation. Granted it is better to figure this out before releasing the game so you don't have to use the nerf bat. If you want to be more overpowered play the game on easy/tourist mode.

[zuddy]

If I want to use the Cougar Magnum for every level, that's my prerogative.Naturally.
If I find the shortcut through the level that wasn't supposed to be there, again, my decision.Well, no.
If I want to dupe those coins, again, my fucking decision.It depends on if it's a bug or a cheat, I'd say. If the developers push out a bugfix that ruins your shortcut by fixing the map, or eliminates duping because of a bug that wasn't supposed to be there, I don't think you have any particular leg to stand on complaining about it. If, on the other hand, all of a sudden you can't iddqd through the game, that is something worrisome.

By your line of reasoning, every instance of getting stuck in level geometry is an "unintended feature" by which you've found a way to calmly observe the scenery until the time you decide to reload your last save.

I like cheats, the presence of them calms me, and finding obscure things within the game design appeals to me, but there's nothing wrong with wanting your product to work as intended.

[coldvvvave]

It's turn-based... Battles can take 30+ minutes each... You have a party... It's nothing like Might and Magic 6-8... It's definitely nothing like Morrowind/Oblivion...

Obvious troll and all that.
Might and Magic 6-8 are turn-based too( there is a real-time mod but it's stupid). And there is a party of four guys. And battles can be long, at least until you learn some cool spells. Also, I'm not a troll, I just played it long time ago. All I wanted to say is that Wizardry 8 may be more complex than Might and Magic and Morrowind, but it's still a similair game. I'd say compared to M&M it was like an X-com to vanilla Jagged Alliance 2 in terms of complexity. Gonna replay it this weekend.

[Wizardry]

Oh brother. That's a bit nanny state, isn't it? "I'm patching this game for your own good?"

If I get through the game easier than you, exactly what bloody harm am I doing to your fun. Inducing jealousy?
So if I played a CRPG as a certain non-combat focused character type, but all the skills I picked happen to not be implemented (not uncommon at all), and I'm forced to use melee weapons all through the game because melee is overpowered, then the game shouldn't get patched to support the role I chose to play, just because people like you happen to have chosen a melee combat build in the first place?

[Wizardry]

Might and Magic 6-8 are turn-based too( there is a real-time mod but it's stupid). And there is a party of four guys. And battles can be long, at least until you learn some cool spells. Also, I'm not a troll, I just played it long time ago. All I wanted to say is that Wizardry 8 may be more complex than Might and Magic and Morrowind, but it's still a similair game. I'd say compared to M&M it was like an X-com to vanilla Jagged Alliance 2 in terms of complexity. Gonna replay it this weekend.
They aren't similar in the slightest outside of the first person view. Might and Magic 1 and 2 are similar to Wizardry 1, 2 and 3 in many ways, but after those games both series diverged dramatically. The Morrowind and Wizardry 8 comparison is quite frankly bizarre. It's like comparing Dragon Age II to Champions of Krynn, or Mass Effect to Countdown to Doomsday. Bizarre.

[cosmicolor]

So if I played a CRPG as a certain non-combat focused character type, but all the skills I picked happen to not be implemented (not uncommon at all), and I'm forced to use melee weapons all through the game because melee is overpowered, then the game shouldn't get patched to support the role I chose to play, just because people like you happen to have chosen a melee combat build in the first place?

That to me sounds less like a balance issue and more like developer incompetence, assuming the skills are as you say literally not implemented. If they were implemented but, well, awful, in my perfect world they would be buffed up so that they're just as viable as melee for getting through the game.

Which is totally inefficient and not nearly as easy as just nerfing melee, but it's my perfect world goddamnit.

To clarify, if something in the game is broken to the point where it's harming performance or causing crashes, or aspects of the game aren't working, then that should be patched. But if it's just a case of, say, skills or character builds being powerful, I say let it be, unless it's an EXTREME occasion. Deal with it or play another game.

I think, ironically, this attitude comes form my background in fighting games, a community of gamers whose attitude tends to be to deal with a game, warts (or imbalances) and all, or play something else, despite them being multiplayer games.

[J Arcane]

My background comes from being older than 12, and having gamed in the days when every game didn't have some forum somewhere full of people whining "that's not fair!" about every little thing.

My biggest blame on the cult of balance is MMOs, and especially Blizzard. They, more than anyone, have cultivated the cult of balance past any semblance of reason, to the point where even tabletop games like D&D are being scrubbed of any differentiation in the relentless pursuit of a soulless and flavorless "balance".

[imirk]

What I'm saying is that being unbalanced makes a game really boring and one dimensional, there will only be one optimum stategy/tactic/weapon/build and it removes choice from the gaming experience, even in single player.

[TillEulenspiegel]

My biggest blame on the cult of balance is MMOs, and especially Blizzard. They, more than anyone, have cultivated the cult of balance past any semblance of reason, to the point where even tabletop games like D&D are being scrubbed of any differentiation in the relentless pursuit of a soulless and flavorless "balance".
But that's just boring, shit design. Any motive can lead to shit design. In the case of the StarCrafts, the goal of balance has clearly lead to good design.

Personality is great. Game-breaking stuff isn't; it's usually fun to abuse for an hour, and then deeply unsatisfying.

[cosmicolor]

I think unbalances can potentially provide fun. A weaker build in an RPG gives players the challenge of getting through the game on a suboptimal build, whereas if they want to power through everything there can be ways of doing so. If it's a multiplayer game it can provide exciting underdog matches with weak characters vs strong, overpowered characters, something you wouldn't really get in a theoretical well balanced game.

Plus I don't think balance either way is the be all or end all of a game. People talk as if it can singlehandedly ruin a game but really doesn't always do that.

[age]

My background comes from being older than 12, and having gamed in the days when every game didn't have some forum somewhere full of people whining "that's not fair!" about every little thing.

My biggest blame on the cult of balance is MMOs, and especially Blizzard. They, more than anyone, have cultivated the cult of balance past any semblance of reason, to the point where even tabletop games like D&D are being scrubbed of any differentiation in the relentless pursuit of a soulless and flavorless "balance".

How is Blizzard to blame for this "cult of balance" (whatever that means)? All Blizzards games have huge multiplayer components, and multiplayer games by their very nature have to strive for balance. Balance doesn't mean that certain things can't be strong, just counterable. Seige Tanks are strong, the Demon Hunter is strong, both are balanced. Blizzard games (Cataclysm aside) have traditionally had a huge amount of balanced strategic options available to players. That's a good thing, and I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

I think you're confusing balancing with streamlining. For example a League of Legends patch recently made the +gold from items only stack once. +gold builds weren't broken, and nerfing them took away a strategic option, usually a poor one. That's streamlining, not balancing.

[J Arcane]

They've cultivated it by failing to understand the difference between PvP and the rest of their game, and allowing the complaints of their forumites to dominate the game's design to the point of self-destruction, fueling the self-entitlement of 10 million whining trolls and ensuring that the whole notion of "balance" before flavor or distinction is entrenched in attitudes on game design so thoroughly that it infects even thinking about singleplayer games and experiences.

[sabrage]

I went ahead and installed League of Legends the other day. It was my go-to multiplayer addiction for a LONG time, but they've stripped the game of any semblance of fun in the name of profit. The Vayne era completely convinced me that Riot was not above selling power; the fact that a clearly overpowered champion remained unpatched for over a month was simply ridiculous. And another round of nerfs came, and new overpowered characters emerged. The game has too many characters, and Riot releases a new overpowered one every two weeks, and there's no way a selfish playerbase of (3?) millions of players who all literally think they are the best will ever create a fun ecosystem.

I picked up Starcraft 2, and I was actually SURPRISED when people didn't rage at me. That's how many assholes play League.

[deano2099]

They've cultivated it by failing to understand the difference between PvP and the rest of their game

Actually they understand it quite well and have talked about it at length, and how it's a constant attempt to walk the line between the different needs of PvP and PvE in WoW, and having consistency of how things work across both elements of the game so as not to be confusing. There are already some skills that act differently in arenas to everywhere else.

Starcraft 2 takes at step further, and the campaign and multi-player are balanced entirely separately, and none of the patches for the multiplayer change the campaign unless they're designed specifically to do so (bug fixes, etc).

[Gentleman Jim Stacey]

This reminds me of another unconventional view I have...

The only Blizzard game I played at length was Diablo 2, I don't feel like playing any of their other games except Diablo 3

Played Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1 a few missions years ago...about it. I could appreciate the polish on them but they just didn't do anything for me personally. Never was into MMOs so never tried WoW.

Diablo 2 was awesome, though, and Diablo 3 looks awesome.

[deano2099]

I'm the total opposite. Diablo 2 remains the only Blizzard game I've not played since Starcraft. And one of the few (if only) highly regarded games I've bounced right off of. I should like it, it just doesn't work for me for some reason.

[SirKicksalot]

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is by far the worst AC game.
Ubisoft listened to the whiny Hitman fans and filled AssBro with shitty restrictions. Most freedom is gone as the missions force you to stay on a single path, don't kill anyone until you reach an arbitrary point, stay too close to your target, complete a shitty across the city task in about three seconds and so on. It's TOO RIGID. They also filled the game with too many Prince of Persia areas, which completely miss the point of AC's platforming.

[Jockie]

This reminds me of another unconventional view I have...

The only Blizzard game I played at length was Diablo 2, I don't feel like playing any of their other games except Diablo 3

Played Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1 a few missions years ago...about it. I could appreciate the polish on them but they just didn't do anything for me personally. Never was into MMOs so never tried WoW.

Diablo 2 was awesome, though, and Diablo 3 looks awesome.

Pretty much exactly the same views here, except I've dabbled with WoW via free trials and played a few games of Starcraft multiplayer against my will. But the only Blizzard games on PC (Lost Vikings was awesome) that ever truly clicked with me were Diablo 1 and 2.

[DPred]

I really didn't like Bioshock

I played Bioshock for about two hours and just didn't enjoy it in the slightest. Stopped then and there and have never gone back. The combat was dull, dying had zero consequence and was just somewhat annoying, and the "morality" choices were contrived and stupid. I really don't understand the heaps of praise this game has received and have no intention of ever trying to play the game again.

[Kadayi]

They've cultivated it by failing to understand the difference between PvP and the rest of their game, and allowing the complaints of their forumites to dominate the game's design to the point of self-destruction, fueling the self-entitlement of 10 million whining trolls and ensuring that the whole notion of "balance" before flavor or distinction is entrenched in attitudes on game design so thoroughly that it infects even thinking about singleplayer games and experiences.

I hate to burst your bubble but it's relatively standard with a title as big as WoW that they (the developers) don't waste their time listening to the player base so much as monitor the metrics they gather from the game itself. Forums can be useful for identifying certain issues (like genuine bugs) but developers balancing games has far more to do with the daily stats showing spikes and troughs in terms of player success/failure than player base whining.

[Rii]

"I should be able to play the game the way I want."

What this actually means is "I expect the developers to anticipate and actively cater for my every whim." And no, they shouldn't. I wouldn't expect Steven Spielberg to actively facilitate the insertion of zombies into Schindler's List, nor would I expect developers to facilitate (for example) save-anywhere if they feel it is not in the best interests of their game. If you disagree with a particular design decision, feel free to offer feedback and/or not buy the game, but drop the entitlement complex. Art does not exist to serve the audience.

[studenteternal]

It is an interesting question, because ultimately a game is not a movie and we the players are encouraged to make it our own in a way that is not possible in a passive media. On the other hand of course if it completely unreasonable to "expect the developers to anticipate and actively cater for my every whim" I have found that I am the happiest as a player when the developer clearly communicates how they expect me to interact with their game. Thus I enjoyed COD4 (MW1) because I understood this was a cinematic experience, I was forfeiting the ability to cast the story I wanted it to go in exchange for exciting set pieces and loud noisy fun, and I enjoyed Oblivion (post Obscuro's mod) for exactly the opposite reasons.

Where I become infuriated is when the developer implies, either in pre-game marketing or even worse through the in game mechanics/presentation is one way when it is another. This is why to this day Fable is one of the worst gaming experiences I have ever had, and despise lionhead.

[AndrewC]

Art exists to serve the audience.

[studenteternal]

At risk of getting severly distracted from the point of this thread, Does it? Some very famous art pieces, Andy Kaufman, Warhol's soup can paintings, for example, seem to exist to directly challenge and aggravate the audience.

Edit; Punctuation for clarification.

[AndrewC]

The point being, if it is not for the audience, who is it for? An 'art' that is not seen is nothing at all.

Now: i'm being facetious in my definition of 'serve', as it has been used here mostly to mean 'pander to', but the attitude of 'art does not exist to serve the audience' is a couple of very small steps away from a sort of 'ivory tower' attitude where an 'art' should not be made for an audience and that the audience should be ignored which i believe to be, partly, metaphysically ugly but mostly the sort of self-involved, self-important attitude that leads to appalling 'arts'.

Andy Kaufman was totally making his work with his audience in mind. He conceived it from the ground-up to get a reaction from the audience. The audience's reaction was the art. It just, you know, wasn't a happy reaction.

The audience: super important!

[Rii]

It is an interesting question, because ultimately a game is not a movie and we the players are encouraged to make it our own in a way that is not possible in a passive media.

I agree that this is a factor, but not an overriding one. Let's try another example: there's a sequence in Metal Gear Solid 4 that has the player mash a single button for what seems like forever. Even if it didn't actually make your hand hurt - which it does - it is appalling design by any conventional standard. Except that it's actually fucking brilliant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WFrq90hiyk&t=0h1m50s) in that to a slight but nonetheless remarkable degree it aligns the player's physical and mental state with that of the character he's controlling. It's not meant to be fun, it wouldn't have focus-tested well, and some folks probably actually gave up on the game at that point. And so what? Greatness isn't achieved by aiming at the lowest common denominator and smoothing away any edges that might conceivably turn someone off from the game, rather it's achieved by having something to say and saying it.

The problem with the AAA industry at the moment is that titles need to have such broad appeal to be financially viable that entire genres - such as survival horror - are disappearing and works of fantastic imagination like Bioshock Infinite are married almost embarrassingly to the kind of Quake-like gameplay that would make Jean Claude Van Damme blush. The 'games should serve the audience' crowd would hold this up as an ideal to aspire to rather than an unfortunate and hopefully transitory reality.

[Nalano]

with more personal connections, less reliance on labyrinthine politics, and clear motivations for our hero, Geralt.

Eh. W2 suffers mainly from middle child syndrome. It picks up where W1 stops, there's an overall plot arc that will extend to W3, and as such it's mostly muddling through politics. Other than that, I love it.

Edit: Oh yeah, on topic:

I find sitting on server forums more interesting than playing the MMOs they're attached to.

Oh, wait, that's not unconventional at all.

[Kaira-]

I find sitting on server forums more interesting than playing the MMOs they're attached to.



Ha, I did the same - but it was DA2 forums, before and after the launch. Quite a mess going there, and the aftermath was fun to follow. Now, if I only could be arsed to buy and play said game one day.

[Keep]

I have no problem with cheating in single player games.

In fact, sometimes I could even advocate it.

[Lambchops]

Seeing as Blizzard have been in the news today. No Blizzard games appeal to me at all. Nary a one. Not through any sense of being contrary, they just aren't my cup of milk. I've never been an MMO fan (so no Warcraft), I played a demo of Diablo and hated it (my recent experiences buying Torchlight in a sale tell me that I still do as well, I just found it rather boring). The only blizzard game I ever bought was Starcraft. I figured in its position as one of the most well regarded RTS games ever it was the game that might finally get me into the genre (having again been put off it as a kid by one of the Command and Conquer games). I didn't like it and gave it to someone else, I just found the micro management tedious.

There's no doubt their games are well produced but a grand total of none of them cover even the slightest niche of things I like.

I notice from reading this page that there's a few people with me on this. I guess it's perhaps more surprising that there's a reasonable number of people who dislike 3 such popular types of game more than their being people who aren't particularly enamoured by Blizzard.

[Kody94]

I have no problem with cheating in single player games.

In fact, sometimes I could even advocate it.

Indeed, cheating is an age-old gaming tradition. I remember the hilarity that ensued from crushing my enemies via cheats in Age of Empires 2, giving Russia and myself a few dozen nukes and then declaring war in Civilization, and granting myself level 200 hand-to-hand skill and smacking down those Indroil guards in Morrowind.

I do find it irritating when people demand to be recognized for their "achievements" in games when they clearly cheated to get so far. Example: Minecraft, Terraria, Mount and Blade, Oblivion, Fallout 3.

[J Arcane]

I notice from reading this page that there's a few people with me on this. I guess it's perhaps more surprising that there's a reasonable number of people who dislike 3 such popular types of game more than their being people who aren't particularly enamoured by Blizzard.

I used to like Blizzard games. I was a huge fan of the Warcraft series, especially WCII, I loved Diablo, I think Blackthorne and WoW are pinnacles of their respective genres, and Rock'n'Roll Racing is one of the best games of all time.

But dammit if they haven't been making it harder and harder to be a fan ever since jumping on the Activision bandwagon. THe criminally unfinished Cataclysm expansion, the macrotransaction abuse, the episodification of StarCraft II, and all the various greedy ploys they've either announced or threatened with Diablo III, all add up to a picture of a developer that seems an awful lot more influenced by their co-partner's "Greed is Good" philosophy of game design than the original promises of developer independence post-merger indicated.

I don't really see "Blizzard" anymore. It's just another division of Activision now, and every bit as exploitative and greedy as their parent company.

[BathroomCitizen]

I used to like Blizzard a lot too in the past. It was one of my favourite companies.

I think that their title that I liked the most was Warcraft 3: I have a lot of good memories of it. But I'll be damned if I like Starcraft 2 on the same magnitude. It feels so cold in comparison! I don't really know what it is, but I can't really sense its soul. Starcraft 1 had that.

[Rii]

Eh. W2 suffers mainly from middle child syndrome. It picks up where W1 stops, there's an overall plot arc that will extend to W3, and as such it's mostly muddling through politics. Other than that, I love it.

I think TW2 is a great game by almost any standard except the one that I'm using here: in comparison to TW1. I'm actually struggling to think of a single thing the game did better than its (fully patched) predecessor. And as I write that, I realise it isn't true: the scene between Geralt and Triss right at the start of the game: integrating sexy time with meaningful Stuff™ rather than keeping the two at arms length as in TW1 ... and most every other game for that matter.

But what I was going to write was that I can't even give my assent to the obvious: the graphics. The Prologue and Chapter 1 aside, TW2 is a rather ugly game to the point that I actually prefer the aesthetic of its predecessor, and the verisimilitude of the graphics only heightens the disconnect in terms of how the world is constructed. To borrow an observation from someone else, it's like being in an octopus. TW1 was the same way to an extent, but that the world didn't look real in that game somehow made it easier to swallow. From a gameplay perspective TW1's cleaner aesthetic made it easier to See Wot Should Be Seen too, whereas with TW2 the eyes are often overwhelmed with detail.


the episodification of StarCraft II

Oh please. This was a ridiculous argument even before Wings of Liberty was actually released featuring more game than 90% of contemporary AAA titles.

No disputing that Blizzard has done some Questionable and downright Terrible things of late, but that isn't one of them.

[BobsLawnService]

I'nm not a fan of faction based gameplay. I don't want a game to cut me off from content - I want to explore and experience what I want to explore and experience. I want to do everything I want in a single playthrough.

[Rii]

I'nm not a fan of faction based gameplay. I don't want a game to cut me off from content - I want to explore and experience what I want to explore and experience. I want to do everything I want in a single playthrough.

Well the game you're looking for should be done by Q1 2013 so you can buy it then. For my part I'm glad we didn't have to wait that long.

[Wizardry]

I'nm not a fan of faction based gameplay. I don't want a game to cut me off from content - I want to explore and experience what I want to explore and experience. I want to do everything I want in a single playthrough.
You obviously aren't an RPG fan then.

[Hensler]

I freaking love the advent of DLC and map packs. The pricing sucks for people without a lot of disposable income, but I buy all sorts of random trinkets and sometimes never even play them. I even bought the horse armor.

[J Arcane]

I remember when maps were something developers threw into patches for free to encourage future sales and stimulate fresh gameplay.

Apparently only Valve remembers that now.

[Nalano]

You obviously aren't an RPG fan then.

You aren't an RPG fan.

You'd make the worst RPG designer in the world.

No. That just means you're aren't good enough at playing RPGs. Simple.

And it's funny that you don't understand games.

You really have to stop this.

[Wizardry]

You really have to stop this.
And you have to stop saying old CRPGs suck without having played a CRPG older than Knights of the Old Republic.

[Nalano]

And you have to stop saying turn-based CRPGs suck without having played a CRPG older than Knights of the Old Republic.

I tell you what. I'm going to assume you honestly believe I'm some little kiddie that hasn't heard of video games before the PS2 came out and aren't just trolling me.

Let me disabuse you of that notion. I'm not. Nor am I, as you say,


Retarded.

[Wizardry]

I tell you what. I'm going to assume you honestly believe I'm some little kiddie that hasn't heard of video games before the PS2 came out and aren't just trolling me.

Let me disabuse you of that notion. I'm not.
That's all well and good, but when you participate in a 20 page long discussion on the definition of RPGs, it's best to mention games other than the likes of The Witcher, Mass Effect, Dragon Age and Oblivion else I'll just assume you're arguing from one side purely due to inexperience with the other.

[Fumarole]

The camera for Neverwinter Nights 2 was fine

I can honestly say that I never had a problem with it. I played through the game with four friends while LANing and none of them had a problem with it either. This was shortly after release and before any patches that may have adjusted the camera. It was only months later when reading stuff online that I saw the trend of people speaking about their horrible experiences with it.


Far Cry 2 was good

I suspect people playing the game wanted something else. Driving around a giant sandbox while having gunfights was exactly what one should have expected from the game. Parts that players did not desire (checkpoints) were easily avoided had the player put a bit of thought into playing. You get out of the game what you put into it - the same can be said for Crysis.


Stalker: Clear Sky was a fine entry in the series

Granted, I did play this many months after release, so I may have missed the worst of the bugs. I enjoyed the new faction mechanics and the feel of the world.


Empire: Total War was a great game

I played this from day one and put over 240 hours into it. While the battle AI left something to be desired right out of the box, it eventually improved. No it's not as good as the average human player, but few AI are. And yes, I did play every Total War game before this (barring expansions for Shogun and Rome).

[Gentleman Jim Stacey]

Agreed. I made a similar statement earlier (about Napoleon and Shogun 2 being the best vanilla TWs).

I sunk lots of time in Empire and don't regret any of it. Well...I regret Warpath. It was pretty lame. But otherwise...

My first TW game was the original Shogun in 2001. Which is why I think its funny when I see a bunch of 14 year olds talking about how the new ones suck compared to the old ones; they were like 6 when some of the old ones were released. I doubt many of them even played the old ones. There was a poll on TWC when Empire came out and the average age was 14 or 15. AVERAGE.

Thats not to say there's no genuine gripes to be had about the new TW games, I just hate know-it-all teenagers.

[BobsLawnService]

You obviously aren't an RPG fan then.

Not to rain on your parade but most of the old RPG's that you keep going on about as being the only true RPGs didn't have factions and reputation systems that pervented to from experiencing the whole story in those games.

Rigid faction based stories are a relatively recent trend - popularised by the games you keep insisting aren't RPGs.

But do you know what? I'm not an RPG fanatic, I'm just someone who enjoys playing a good game from time to time.

Now stop being such a grumpy muppet, get the broomstick out of your anus and try to let yourself have some fun from time to time.

[Wizardry]

Not to rain on your parade but most of the old RPG's that you keep going on about as being the only true RPGs didn't have factions and reputation systems that pervented to from experiencing the whole story in those games.

Rigid faction based stories are a relatively recent trend - popularised by the games you keep insisting aren't RPGs.
Ah, so you're an old-schooler. That's nice to see. I just assumed your knowledge of CRPGs extended no further than Fallout like most others on this forum. My mistake.

[Cacamas]

Heavily scripted FPS games are rubbish

This is perhaps a little vague as a definition but bear with me. The first game I consider to be heavily scripted is Half-life. I didn't like the magic happenings that occurred when I crossed an invisible line back in 1999 when I first played it and, if anything, I've gotten to dislike it more in the intervening years.

The example I remember most is a few hours into HL, when you're going through some more ducts (as you do so often in an FPS). You approach a dead end but there's nothing other than a grid mesh. Going closer you can see out, some soldiers spot you, they drop down to your level and BOOM, the grid blows away and the game continues. Nothing wrong with that, right? Except that I had to replay that particular section a few times and I worked out the precise line which I had to cross to get the event to happen. So then the event made no sense whatsoever because I could go forward and back and the soldiers would see me WHEN THEY COULDN'T.

Bioshock was also very bad for this; that stupid bit with Atlas' family springs to mind. I knew what I was supposed to do (or at least try to do), but I didn't rush to do it because I instinctively knew their fate the second he started moaning at me. I stood in that little room for a while, daring it to explode and save me the hassle of going down and fighting some more splicers. But no, I had to hit that bloody invisible line to make the game move on.

In short, scripted events break immersion more often than not. When the entire game is based around them the game is ruined, no matter how good the rest of it is. The simpler approach of Borderlands, Serious Sam, Painkiller and Doom is the best: no frippery, all action. Most modern FPSs annoy me because of this, since almost all FPS game designers follow the HL2 route of script upon script upon script.

Mute protagonists are stupid
They make no sense. When somebody speaks to you directly, why would you say nothing? Why, when all these extraordinary events are occurring around you, would you say nothing? While Mass Effect left me cold for the most part, I did like that Shepard actually replied and talked. HL2 is a particularly egregious example, since the other characters actually point it out and constantly refer to your silence.

Without communication, there is nothing but a vacuum, a boring and dull one at that. Since I don't see myself as a silent psychopath who slaughters thousands without making a sound, my personality does not fill that void either. I'm playing a character - there should be one at the other end.

Half-Life 1 + 2 are mediocre games
No surprise considering my previous complaints. The basic mechanics of shooting are fine, though not as "tight" as other games. No memorable weapons (except for the buzzy alien thing in HL1) and a very small number of enemies that are mostly predictable. It wasn't all bad: in HL1, the spiky tentacle monster underneath the rocket was excellent, like an extremely tense action puzzle. Also, I enjoyed Xen because of the lack of scripted events and being able to use the buzzy gun where it was supposed to be used. In HL2, the chase through the sewers was good. But that's it. Admittedly, I haven't finished HL2 but I've gotten at least 7 hours in, which is more than enough in my book.

[Lambchops]

@ Cacamas

I think enjoying Xen is an unconventional view on its own. It had first person platforming, which is routinely terrible. Also no memeorable weapons! Gravity gun? Magnum? Cranky whirry experimental beam o' doom thing? Agree with you on the mute protagonists though.

[Hensler]

Ah, so you're an old-schooler. That's nice to see. I just assumed your knowledge of CRPGs extended no further than Fallout like most others on this forum. My mistake.

Is it even relevant to discuss CRPGs that old alongside newer things, though?

[Wizardry]

Is it even relevant to discuss CRPGs that old alongside newer things, though?
Yes, as long as the topic doesn't specifically exclude older "things". PC Gaming since 1873 and all that.

[Fumarole]

My biggest blame on the cult of balance is MMOs, and especially Blizzard. They, more than anyone, have cultivated the cult of balance past any semblance of reason, to the point where even tabletop games like D&D are being scrubbed of any differentiation in the relentless pursuit of a soulless and flavorless "balance".I too find it depressing when RPGs try to balance everything for low level characters of every type. Maybe it's my old school D&D self speaking but a first level level magic-user should be as fearsome as a kitten once their magic missile has been cast for the day.

Players need to suck it up and change their play styles accordingly.

[Anthile]

I too find it depressing when RPGs try to balance everything for low level characters of every type. Maybe it's my old school D&D self speaking but a first level level magic-user should be as fearsome as a kitten once their magic missile has been cast for the day.

Players need to suck it up and change their play styles accordingly.

What? That's a terrible mechanic. It only leads to "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" aka
http://i.imgur.com/6lWPz.jpg

[Wizardry]

What? That's a terrible mechanic. It only leads to "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" aka

Or linear warriors, linear wizards. But hey, who am I to stop you spouting exaggerated tropes??

[Drinking with Skeletons]

Act III of The Witcher 2 is not a cliffhanger and is not too short!

The Witcher 2's plot wouldn't be out of place in a classic film noir. Geralt is framed for a crime and must clear his name. Doing so requires him to get involved in the personal matters of the powerful. That is the entire plot of the game! All of the kings & fate-of-nations stuff is extraneous. Geralt's memory & lost love are a meta-plot carried over from the first game which could be excised from both games without affecting anything; obviously this (presumably) does not apply to The Witcher 3, which seems to have been setup to conclude this meta-plot. At the end of The Witcher 2 you get all of the answers for the game's (not the series'!) plot.

MASSIVE SPOILERS:

Geralt wasn't framed, but was in the wrong place at the wrong time! The antagonistic witcher--I can't recall his name--doesn't bear any ill-will, and actually helps you out somewhat by rescuing Triss (if you didn't do so yourself). The real villains are the sorceresses, who wish to act as a kind of shadow government, & the Nilfgaardians, who are an expansionist empire. The "villainous" witcher was working for the sorceresses only because their goals coincidentally aligned with the goals of the Nilfgaardian Empire's. He worked for the Nilfgaardians because they promised to re-establish the School of the Serpent, a goal which Geralt should empathize with, particularly if you've played the first game. Both parties wanted kings assassinated to facilitate their plans to control the Northern Kingdoms. Everyone was pissed at the antagonistic witcher because they never realized that he was smart enough to pull the various elaborate schemes and double-crosses. You can allow that one sorceress--whose name I also cannot recall--to die a horrible death, and can deal with the other (or Deathmold!) depending on your choices. The explanation of the dragon crops up depending on your choices, but I feel this is the most glaring (potential) plot hole. That's it! Did I miss something?

The next game seems like it will focus on the Wild Hunt & Geralt's lost love (whose name I also cannot remember!). The Nilfgaardians--who were set up as evil assholes in the first game, as well--will be invading the Northern Kingdoms, but this will be mostly a backdrop for Geralt's exploits (making it easier to incorporate/ignore the various player choices that might be carried over from The Witcher 2 while still being politically complex). It will not be a continuation of the plot of The Witcher 2, but of the meta-plot of the entire series.

As for length, I think a lot of people wanted/expected something more like an Elder Scrolls title or Fallout: New Vegas, in which there are hours upon hours of side quests available at any moment. I don't know about the rest of you, but at that point in my playthrough(s) I had several goals to accomplish, people to avenge, and people to kill, and not much time to do it in (because a political summit isn't going to last forever, what with the participants having governments to run). There wasn't realistically much room into which quests could be slotted and the game's plot escalated in a fashion that was clearly supposed to create an effective rising action and satisfying climax. I think it worked quite well; compare it to something like, say, Bioshock, which suffered greatly from an unfocused and drawn-out final act. It's subjective, but I prefer The Witcher 2's approach.

[squirrel]

For Shooter Games, Joypad Works Better Than Mouse / Keyboard

For a shooter game, a well designed console shooter game is much more enjoyable than a PC shooter game we commonly come a cross. By "well designed", of course, to begin with you have to tailor make it to work well with the controller specifically for that particular game console. Otherwise, you dont even talk about any other criteria to judge if it's good or bad. Therefore, so far I don't find any good console shooter game which is cross-platform. Xbox's controller is very well designed for shooter games, you have to give it that. Of course, Killzone for Playstation is also very enjoyable shooter game, but to me some of the fun is hindered by the not so well designed (at least for shooter) dual-shock controller.

Controller provide more variety in controls than mouse / keyboard combination. Precision is not everything for a shooter game. Less precise shooting can provide another kind of amusement. That's what constitutes selling point to some shooter games (say, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., of course it's a PC game so far). Shooter game genre, however, has evolved to be more than just shooting. There are more gameplay elements and actions than just shoot. Vehicle driving, for instance, stands out itself as a very essential competitive edge for some shooter games (either FPS or TPS). Controller does an excellent job to switch between human movement controlling and vehicle piloting. Driving mechanism of Far Cry 2 is the ONLY one so far that work well on mouse / keyboard, but I doubt any other developers can learn from it. I mean, if I am an executive of UBI I would definitely apply patent for the mechanism and sue any bastard who dares to come close to my hard work. I recall playing Halo and Halo 2, to enjoy myself by racing those land and aerial vehicles around. Then, compare with my painful experience piloting choppers in Bad Company 2 (why didn't DICE make it as easy to pilot a chopper as to pilot a UAV?!), I more of prefer a console shooter over PC shooter while piloting vehicle. To add, the god damned Crysis 1's land vehicle is retarded, and its VTOL piloting is unplayable!! Let me skip that mission so that I can finish the Crysis 1, please Crytek.

Then, I dont know how to explain this, but playing on controller is more intense then on mouse / keyboard. So for PC shooter, you buy a cheap USB made-in-China joypad then it solves the problem, right? But once you play a shooter on PC you would be tempted to play it only on mouse / keyboard in favor of precise shooting.

To conclude, for a cross-platform shooter game I still prefer PC version, but generally specific platform exclusive shooter games are usually better.

[Nalano]

Act III of The Witcher 2 is not a cliffhanger and is not too short!

(spoilers)

I didn't find Act 3 to be too short, and I really, really liked the motivations and characterization of the folks who were your antagonists. Everybody had an angle, sure, but that angle was understandable. That you could decide not to fight Letho was great - as you said, he wasn't the antagonist, Nilfgaard was. And you don't even have to fight Nilfgaard, because you're not bound to any of the nations whose internecine warfare you've been entangled with.

The closest thing Geralt has to an allegiance with a nation-state is with Temeria if you sided with Roche and "North Aedirn" if you sided with Iorveth, and either way Geralt himself admits to something of a transient alliance with the folks therein.

You're right: It's very Noir, in the sense that Geralt is affected by forces far outside his control and, while he fights right back, the main motive is personal survival. And I find it kinda funny that this is probably the first game where the hero has not one but two main love interests: Triss and Yennefer. Dude's a hound dog even if you play him like a prude. High-larious.

[J Arcane]

Bastion is the most irritating game I have played in a long time.

Fuck that announcer. Are gamers really so desperate for any sense of original creative expression in the genre that they will unquestioningly devour and laud a game that is basically "Randy Newman Sings About What He Sees" The Game?

And the game itself is no great shakes either. Yes the art is pretty, but the visual perspective is so zoomed out and the environment so cluttered and confused that actually figuring out what the fuck is going on can be downright impossible. I must have walked straight off a cliff at least half a dozen times just because the little bastard either wasn't where I thought he was, or the controls took my directional commands as mere suggestions.

It's like scoring a number from a lingerie model at a party, then realizing 5 minutes into your first date that this woman can barely shut up long enough to breath and seems mostly oblivious to your presence anyway.

[squirrelfanatic]

No way, that guy is talking ALL the time? :) I had no idea what you were talking about, J Arcane, so I strolled over to youtube and had a quick glance. Incredibly annoying.

[J Arcane]

No way, that guy is talking ALL the time? :) I had no idea what you were talking about, J Arcane, so I strolled over to youtube and had a quick glance. Incredibly annoying.
He really does. He talks. Constantly. About everything you do. Hardly 5 seconds goes by that dude isn't talking. You get hit, he talks, you miss, he talks, you go to a new room, he talks, new monsters spawn, you pick up a weapon, you scratch your ass, he talks and talks and talks. He just won't shut the hell up.

[Rii]

The notion of having the game experience narrated as I go along is probably Bastion's most intriguing feature for me, actually. Maybe I'll hate it, who knows? But the experiment - coupled with everything else I've seen of the game - is something I'm willing to pay for, which is more than I can say for most of the shit the industry puts out.

Maybe you should've read a review before buying the game?

[J Arcane]

The notion of having the game experience narrated as I go along is probably Bastion's most intriguing feature for me, actually. Maybe I'll hate it, who knows? But the experiment - coupled with everything else I've seen of the game - is something I'm willing to pay for, which is more than I can say for most of the shit the industry puts out.

Maybe you should've read a review before buying the game?
Thankfully, I was able to demo it first, and didn't actually burn the $15.

Also, reviews wouldn't have helped anyway because EVERYONE is glowing about this game, hence my posting about it in the "less conventional" thread. ;)

[Rii]

But a review might've said something like...

The game has two neat gimmicks. The first gimmick is that your actions are accompanied throughout by the throaty narration of a wise old man (wonderfully voiced by a chap called Logan Cunningham), who mixes soulful commentary on the tortured world around you with weary observations about The Kid's weaponry and behaviour in the game, wheezing poetry into your motion. (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-19-bastion-review)

... and saved you the bother.

[J Arcane]

I don't think that comment really does justice to just how much he bloody talks, and the review overall is hardly negative. This review was probably more accurate, to my perspective anyway, but it was one of only two that offered any real criticism of it at all: http://www.destructoid.com/review-bastion-206398.phtml

[Rii]

I don't think that comment really does justice to just how much he bloody talks, and the review overall is hardly negative.

Why should the review be negative? My point is it describes one of the game's key selling points. It would be fair enough to argue that having the game narrated for you doesn't actually lend much to the experience or that the execution here is ineffective or grating or whatever, but your complaint here is simply the fact that it happens, which speaks to a failure to research the game rather than a flaw in the game itself. It's like walking into a Transformers film and being surprised that it's a popcorn flick featuring giant robots rather than a documentary on the electricity grid.

Evidently the same things that many people found endearing about the product you found frustrating. That's fine, but it's not a credible criticism of the game itself any more than it would be reasonable for me to complain about Football Manager receiving positive reviews on the basis that it is about Soccer and Soccer is obviously dumb.


This review was probably more accurate, to my perspective anyway, but it was one of only two that offered any real criticism of it at all: http://www.destructoid.com/review-bastion-206398.phtml

Eww. That review is almost over before it gets to anything worth reading, i.e. telling me what distinguishes this game from the dozens of other superficially similar titles that I could be playing instead.

[J Arcane]

Eww. That review is almost over before it gets to anything worth reading, i.e. telling me what distinguishes this game from the dozens of other superficially similar titles that I could be playing instead.

I think you misunderstood the point then. Because the driving thesis of that review was in fact that there ARE dozens of similar titles you could be playing and that very little distinguishes them save for the few gimmicks that mostly serve to annoy.

[thegooseking]

No-one's impressed by how hardcore you are

I have to confess that I find it absolutely baffling that some people still have the wrongheaded and stupid idea that a player should have to earn enjoyment from a game. Challenge and reward is all well and good, but the reward should never be 'fun'. Fun should be given to the player unconditionally.

[Serenegoose]

No-one's impressed by how hardcore you are

I have to confess that I find it absolutely baffling that some people still have the wrongheaded and stupid idea that a player should have to earn enjoyment from a game. Challenge and reward is all well and good, but the reward should never be 'fun'. Fun should be given to the player unconditionally.

As a universal, I agree. However personally, I feel I wish to earn my enjoyment from a game, because I feel that ultimately the victory is more fulfilling and thus more fun. However obviously that's the sort of thing that should be addressed by a comprehensive set of difficulty modes, to allow each player to set their own preferred degree of challenge.

[Nalano]

No-one's impressed by how hardcore you are

That's a lie! *sob* That's a damned LIE!

I hate you. :(

[J Arcane]

No-one's impressed by how hardcore you are

I have to confess that I find it absolutely baffling that some people still have the wrongheaded and stupid idea that a player should have to earn enjoyment from a game. Challenge and reward is all well and good, but the reward should never be 'fun'. Fun should be given to the player unconditionally.
In particular, this one is why when talking to old school MMO players, I have to constantly suppress the desire to punch them in the face.

[Nalano]

In particular, this one is why when talking to old school MMO players, I have to constantly suppress the desire to punch them in the face.

One day I will be a rich man. For I will be the first to make the internet punching machine. Now if you'll just lean closer to your monitor...

[J Arcane]

One day I will be a rich man. For I will be the first to make the internet punching machine. Now if you'll just lean closer to your monitor...

Unfortunately, I've had the displeasure of dealing with such people in person.

No, Friend of a friend who drinks to much, waiting 18 hours to spawn camp a raid boss that took 100 people another 18 hours to kill does not make Everquest "more meaningful" than WoW, it just means you needed a real job.

[deano2099]

I'm never sure on the hardcore thing. I sort of get it. People spend ages training for sports or learning an instrument and it's not always fun. There's hard graft there too, but in the end it's worth it. So I can sort of get people taking that same approach with games (and honestly I don't see anything inherently superior in being able to move your legs really quickly than killing a tough raid boss) but it's not an approach I've ever taken with them.

[Nalano]

I'm never sure on the hardcore thing. I sort of get it. People spend ages training for sports or learning an instrument and it's not always fun. There's hard graft there too, but in the end it's worth it. So I can sort of get people taking that same approach with games (and honestly I don't see anything inherently superior in being able to move your legs really quickly than killing a tough raid boss) but it's not an approach I've ever taken with them.

I half-see your point, where you equate physical ability with mental ability. Certainly.

But raid bosses are never tough. It's a very low bar to overcome.

[J Arcane]

I half-see your point, where you equate physical ability with mental ability. Certainly.

But raid bosses are never tough. It's a very low bar to overcome.

Indeed. I think that's why it rubs me the wrong way in terms of MMOs. It's seldom a question of skill or strategy, as that's usually just "don't stand in fire" + tank/heal/DPS, it's mostly just a question of time spent and patience for repetition.

[Keep]

The "6-9" grading scale is a good thing

Lemme tell you an interesting quirk about the Irish language: it's very hard to hyperbolise. The vocabulary isn't so wide enough that it has synonyms upon synonyms built around each concept. Words are too closely related to a particular real meaning to make sense outside that specific meaning.
If a man does something nasty, English allows you to describe him as "unfair", or "mean", or "cruel", or "abhorrent", or any one of a whole range of concepts, none of them untrue but most of them...well, strictly a bit wide. In Irish, you'll either use one or two accurate words, or else you'll use a wildly absurd one that'll be met with blank stares.

So a 10 point scale...I don't like the idea of Pitchfork-style "This album is sooo shit, it deserves a 1". Because that's hyperbole. If the music is comprehensible as music, is tight and professional and well-recorded, then that counts for c'mon, at least a "4" - because it's possible (e.g. The Shaggs) to be so shit you can't even keep hold of what you yourself are playing, let alone the rest of the band. And when you have to review that album, well how do you express "This is so much worse than that decent-but-poorly-marked thing from last week".

Most games deserve at least a 6. Roughly. Most really good games still don't deserve a 10. But there is a potential (albeit rarely encountered) range of possibility outside what you typically come across. It's good to be prepared for it.

[deano2099]

it's mostly just a question of time spent and patience for repetition.

And pretty much anyone can run a marathon too. It's just a matter of spending 12 months repeatedly running longer and longer distances.

[deano2099]

it's possible (e.g. The Shaggs) to be so shit you can't even keep hold of what you yourself are playing, let alone the rest of the band. And when you have to review that album, well how do you express "This is so much worse than that decent-but-poorly-marked thing from last week".

But then, those albums don't get released. And if there's a label putting out that stuff then clearly there's an audience for that sort of music. And if it's an indie release, well then you just don't bother with reviewing it.

It used to be different for games, as genuinely broken games would get released, but that's not really the case anymore, outside of PC indie stuff.

[Nalano]

And pretty much anyone can run a marathon too. It's just a matter of spending 12 months repeatedly running longer and longer distances.

12 months is significantly longer than 4 hours.

[deano2099]

Right, but in an MMO you then start on the next raid boss. Actually I'd imagine the amount of time someone in a hardcore raiding guild spends on WoW in a year far exceeds the time spend by a marathon trainer. Which by your logic would make it more worthy.

I just find it somewhat amusing that people act like MMOs that insist you do repetitive, often boring tasks over a long period of time to become skilled enough to do something trivial that gives a sense of reward is anything new.

There are a ton of things in this world that basically anyone can get good at given the time, often things that require a lot less base-skill than playing an MMO. Many of them don't result in any particularly useful ability at the end of it, yet people still spend vast amounts of time on them.

[Track]

I think it's mostly the phycological difference between real world vs. virtual skills. If you train for a year for a marathon, you've gained a skill in real life, you've probably gotten yourself into better shape, and it's something that people can actually see for themselves. Therefore, it's considered to have been a better use of time then sitting in front of a computer screen for an equivalent amount of time improving at an MMO (or any game, for that matter), which is something that no one outside of those playing the game with you will ever see the results of.

Though, personally, I think spending that amount of time focusing on ANY single thing isn't very good for a person. You know, the whole variety-is-the-spice-of-life thing.

[squirrel]

Lower FPS is Preferable to Higher FPS

Not my point of view to be exact, but I agree with it. Read it yourself to see if you buy it or not.

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Oh, and there is a Playstation 2 game called Gundam VS Zeta Gundam which used to be very very popular over here in East Asia. I played it on SCPH30000 machine and there was a strange phenomena. After you play 2P, then return to 1p game, the FPS improves substantial, I didn't take a precise measure but my guess is FPS30 to 60. Looks like to me that the machine gets warmed up by computing intensive 2P split-screen game. You will see that the FPS improvement is very obvious. If you want to prove that you can catch the difference between FPS30 and 60, try that game.

[thegooseking]

Lower FPS is Preferable to Higher FPS

Not my point of view to be exact, but I agree with it. Read it yourself to see if you buy it or not.

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

I don't buy it. I agree with the reasoning behind it, but there are so many better ways to limit visual information and make it open to interpretation and "mentally filling in the blanks": stylistic abstraction, sparsity of lighting, brevity of presentation, etc. The way framerate contributes to that is very, very small.

[Drake Sigar]

No-one's impressed by how hardcore you are

I have to confess that I find it absolutely baffling that some people still have the wrongheaded and stupid idea that a player should have to earn enjoyment from a game. Challenge and reward is all well and good, but the reward should never be 'fun'. Fun should be given to the player unconditionally.
You shut your filthy mouth. I have to believe that someone, somewhere, will be willing to sleep with me if I’ve got a really high achievement score.

[squirrel]

I don't buy it. I agree with the reasoning behind it, but there are so many better ways to limit visual information and make it open to interpretation and "mentally filling in the blanks": stylistic abstraction, sparsity of lighting, brevity of presentation, etc. The way framerate contributes to that is very, very small.

That's why I listed a game as an example. Video game these days, even as visually beautiful as Crysis, is far from a true replication of reality. I am not tech guy so I dont know if this is the technology level which is not advanced enough or the industry intentionally with hold it from consumers. For the game Gundam VS Zeta Gundam, I found it odd that I enjoy the game more when FPS is lower. Lower FPS makes me feel more of playing a game. I know nothing of the mechanism behind but change of FPS is the only difference I notice.

[zuddy]

it's possible (e.g. The Shaggs) to be so shit you can't even keep hold of what you yourself are playing, let alone the rest of the band.That is true, but I think the Shaggs are brilliant (and have thus outed myself as "one of those people").

[CrinnyCow]

I think Bad Company 2 makes for a better multiplayer experience than Battlefield 2.
This does not mean I think Battlefield 2 is a bad or unenjoyable game and this does not mean I think Bad Company 2 is perfect. I just feel from a pure fun perspective, Bad Company 2 is fun, spare the over powered LMGs. Battlefield 2 had much more, much greater problems than Bad Company 2. For one is the prone key. It's not that I don't think prone doesn't work well in games it's just in Battlefield 2, it work [I]too well. Just about every gun fight turns into two players running up to each other, lying down, and firing. My other criticisms are mostly relevant to the technology it was released on. Sure Battlefield 2 did a lot of things right but Bad Company 2 definitely made advancements. It is quite possibly the only fps I've played where I can actually get immersed in multiplayer (given I have not played ArmA II).

Pokemon games are deep and thoroughly enjoyable.
I have played at least one pokemon game from every generation. They are enjoyable for children because of the simplicity of their combat and the cute monsters but on a competitive level (whether it be battle tower or fighting with friends) the strategies taking place can be extremely deep. There are so many possibilities and no one team is better than all others (minus legendaries but even battle tower won't allow you to use most of them).

I enjoy Obsidian's games.
Not much to really be said here... I just like them. I feel they have more interesting stories and more polished mechanics than their predecessors (looking at KOTOR and Fallout series). They may be a little buggy and are normally rushed, but they also get repaired.

I think more WWII games should be made.
Sure it was done to death back in the day, but the era really lends itself to gaming. Not even just FPS, all genres included. I recently played through CoD2 again and there is just something about it that feels good. Whether it be the feedback from the guns, the fact that it [loosely] based on real history, or what have you, I think WWII games are great. Especially after picking up IL-2 1946 and Wings of Prey in the summer steam sale

I'll probably be able to think of more later.

[squirrelfanatic]

Why should the review be negative? My point is it describes one of the game's key selling points. It would be fair enough to argue that having the game narrated for you doesn't actually lend much to the experience or that the execution here is ineffective or grating or whatever, but your complaint here is simply the fact that it happens, which speaks to a failure to research the game rather than a flaw in the game itself. It's like walking into a Transformers film and being surprised that it's a popcorn flick featuring giant robots rather than a documentary on the electricity grid.
As a feature per se, the voice acting might be a neat idea. But the way it is implemented can be criticised (which is what J Arcane did) as being overdrawn and unnecessarily dominant. Reading in a review about the fact that the voice of an offscreen commentator exists wouldn't have helped, but a remark on whether it is babbling all the time would have.

That's one of the reasons why I like the articles on RPS. Especially the WITs and Verdicts give you a good impression where the rough edges on a game might be.

[Keep]

But then, those albums don't get released. And if there's a label putting out that stuff then clearly there's an audience for that sort of music. And if it's an indie release, well then you just don't bother with reviewing it.

It used to be different for games, as genuinely broken games would get released, but that's not really the case anymore, outside of PC indie stuff.

That's a fair point, but it's about possibility. Don't act like "dull lame band" is as bad as it can get, is not even worth one star of ten. It's possible to have much (much) worse music/games/movies than the typical worst.

To me, it's not as important that you make frequent and practical use of the full range as it is that you have it just in order to express what's absolutely possible.

(Also, @zuddy: awesome.)

[Fumarole]

To me, it's not as important that you make frequent and practical use of the full range as it is that you have it just in order to express what's absolutely possible.


Sort of like the F Rating from Brunching Shuttlecocks being reserved for Scrappy Doo alone.

[mpk]

The "6-9" grading scale is a good thing



1-5 would be better. Make the average game score a 3, not a 7.

[Rii]

I'm partial to the four-star system with half-star graduations myself. Plus reserve a 'Great Game' tag for retrospective analyses, Ebert-style.

[mpk]

But then you end up with 17 possible scores (if you include zero stars).

If there has to be a score, and I've long been a proponent of dropping them altogether, then keep it as simple as possible.

EDIT: 17? What? Obviously I meant nine.

[Rii]

EDIT: 17? What? Obviously I meant nine.

Yes it's only slightly less variation than the classic 1-10 scale (although of course many publications go with .1 or .5 graduations on top of that) but the perception is different. A 5 on the 1-10 scale probably translates to 1 star, a 7 is probably 2 stars, 8.5 is probably 3 with 9 being 3.5. The star system provides more room to move in the areas that matter - and most importantly clearly (i.e. visually) distinguishes between 'good' and 'excellent' and 'outstanding' - and avoids the implication of '10' that a top-rated game is the BEST GAME EVAR, with the result that one is comfortable actually using the top end of the scale.

[mpk]

and avoids the implication of '10' that a top-rated game is the BEST GAME EVAR

That's a symptom of the current percentile based scoring system. I'm a lot happier with Edge's 1-10 ratings, where the best games get a 10, with the understanding that there will be other games that score a 10.

(as an aside, I've just looked at the list of Edge "10s" - seems they've only awarded three since I stopped reading. Bayonetta and Rock Band 3? <i>Really?</i>)

But still. No scores are better. Read the damn review, it tells you far more than a score ever will.

[gwathdring]

The "6-9" grading scale is a good thing

Most games deserve at least a 6. Roughly. Most really good games still don't deserve a 10. But there is a potential (albeit rarely encountered) range of possibility outside what you typically come across. It's good to be prepared for it.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[gwathdring]

1-5 would be better. Make the average game score a 3, not a 7.

To me, that's just a matter of resolution.


I think scores in reviews are great. I always read the reviews, but especially if I'm used to the opinions of particular author, a 7/10 can mean a lot to me. Sure there will be lazy people who just look at the score and decide to buy or ditch the game based on that. But I don't think I need to protect those lazy readers from their addiction. There are plenty of people who enjoy scores either for practical or intellectual comparisons, and as a reviewer, I see a good deal of value in numerical communication. Just as some students learn better visually and some learn better verbally ... some otherwise perceptive and intelligent readers don't quite "get" where I'm going from in the review until they read the score in addition to the opinion.

Keep in mind we are designed for comparison--our senses yearn for it. By frequently comparing games in a review, or using a numerical system, we make our reviews much more accessible. And I'm all about accessible.

[Althea]

I don't mind having games tied to my account
Even if they suck, too! I think the second hand market is so poor in the UK, along with quickly-dropping prices, that reselling is pointless. I might spend £30 on a game, but reselling it (if it's even possible) might get me £5. What's the point? Plus, you never know when you'll get bored and give it another go, and find you quite enjoy it.

[Land Squid]

I think Bad Company 2 makes for a better multiplayer experience than Battlefield 2.
This does not mean I think Battlefield 2 is a bad or unenjoyable game and this does not mean I think Bad Company 2 is perfect. I just feel from a pure fun perspective, Bad Company 2 is fun, spare the over powered LMGs. Battlefield 2 had much more, much greater problems than Bad Company 2. For one is the prone key. It's not that I don't think prone doesn't work well in games it's just in Battlefield 2, it work [I]too well. Just about every gun fight turns into two players running up to each other, lying down, and firing. My other criticisms are mostly relevant to the technology it was released on. Sure Battlefield 2 did a lot of things right but Bad Company 2 definitely made advancements. It is quite possibly the only fps I've played where I can actually get immersed in multiplayer (given I have not played ArmA II).



I went back and played BF2 after playing BC2, because I heard people say how much better it was. But I agree with you, I enjoyed it a lot less. Firstly, half the screen was filled up with text from orders and alerts, with seemingly no way to turn that stuff off. That also affected the sound, with a voice alerts playing near constantly. I also thought the guns felt really "light" and weren't satisfying to fire. Also, I really missed the lack of a destruction system. I'm sure it was a good game when it came out, and there are elements I would like to see in BC2, like bigger maps, vehicles which are more durable against infantry, and prone, but I think BC2 is generally a big improvement.

[gwathdring]

I'm not sure how unconventional these are ... probably not all that unconventional. But I'll throw in my two cents, anyway. ;)

Monkey Island 1 and 2 had Mostly Dreadful Puzzles
I loved the characters, the setting, the plot, the comments Threepwood makes when you click on random bits of scenery. All of that is fantastic. I love the voice acting in the Special Edition. But the puzzles. Were so damned abstract. With the most insane (and afterwards, hilarious) leaps of logic ... that I can't imagine finishing the game without either cheating or a lot of trial and error. It was utterly frustrating. I was expected to guess what and absurdist comedy troupe would do next--sure I enjoyed the joke when I figured it out, but the number of guesses required was ridiculous. The game did a good job cheering me up after these bits, though. And I do love absurd humor.


Cover Systems are Great
Lazy level design is not.


Single-Player Portal 2 Was Ok--that includes the writing.
There are bits that I found quite funny. But while the story elements felt at too rushed and too loosely founded on not-especially-clever-jokes, the gameplay felt plodding. The puzzles never got difficult enough for me and I never felt like all of the pieces were ever quite being put together in an exciting and complex enough way. The amount of attention, love and artistry that went into Portal 2 greatly impressed me. I want Valve to sell a billion copies of this game because I like everything it does and is trying to do a lot more than I can say for most games on the market. I'm also enormously excited about the mod prospects and about playing co-op with one of my friends at college this fall. But the game proper underwhelmed me. Most of the jokes were colorful without being funny to me, and the levels were beautiful and interesting without seemingly clever to me. I suppose that's the best way to put it. Portal 2 didn't feel very clever to me. I never felt bested by the puzzles and consequently I never felt I had bested anything noteworthy. I rarely felt genuinely alarmed or disarmed by the writing, and consequently it was an amusing and thoroughly playable adventure that I would heartily recommend to non-gamers and anyone who thought GlaDos's jokes were the best part of Portal 1. I felt like there was an enormous missed opportunity to take me into something truly interesting, twisted, unexpected, and cliver as opposed to something harmless, charming, simple and in it's own way, very engaging.


The Mako Was Fantastic
I loved those Mako trips. I like the controls--I did trick jumps with that thing. I liked rumbling around the terrain making up conversations between my squad members. I loved finding unexpected minerals to survey. I loved the weaponry mounted on the Mako. I really missed it, and the ME2 Hammerhead felt floaty and awkward to me despite being a great concept. For all it's awkwardness I felt the Mako conveyed it's mass rather well and felt like an armored assault vehicle. It was fun to drive, and I still went to almost every planet on my second and third runs through.

[Fumarole]

Max Payne is the game version of Payback.

Starring Mel "Sugartits" Gibson, Payback is a damn good movie.

[Kody94]

I don't mind having games tied to my account
Even if they suck, too! I think the second hand market is so poor in the UK, along with quickly-dropping prices, that reselling is pointless. I might spend £30 on a game, but reselling it (if it's even possible) might get me £5. What's the point? Plus, you never know when you'll get bored and give it another go, and find you quite enjoy it.

Indeed, one of my friends buys console games and trades them in within a month, losing ludicrous amounts of money. Oftentimes he buys the game again a few months later anyway. I showed him Steam and now I don't hear the same old "Sorry, I can't play with you because I traded that [$40] game in [for $8] yesterday....

[thegooseking]

Indeed, one of my friends buys console games and trades them in within a month, losing ludicrous amounts of money. Oftentimes he buys the game again a few months later anyway. I showed him Steam and now I don't hear the same old "Sorry, I can't play with you because I traded that [$40] game in [for $8] yesterday....

On that note, I have to laugh when people say, "lolol PC gamers so stupid, spending so much money on their machine when they could get a gaming machine for 1/5 of the price".

Yeah... the money I've saved on Steam sales and not having to pay the extra on games for platform holder licence fees has paid for my "expensive machine" probably a couple of times over... The licence fee savings alone have paid for it at least once. And we're talking the total cost of my PC, not the difference in cost between my PC and a console.

[thegooseking]

Cover Systems are Great
Lazy level design is not.

I agree, though I think it really depends on the game. Cover systems are cinematic; they're abundant in movies with any kind of shootout, including Star Wars and just about any Western you care to name (of course, movies don't use cover 'systems' per se, but they use cover in the same way that cover systems do). They're not realistic, but they're not meant to be; they're meant to be cool. Where I think cover systems fail is when the game tries to serve two masters; when it can't decide whether it wants to be realistic or cinematic.

I suppose, ultimately, one of my less conventional views is implicit in that, namely that more realism is not always a good thing.

[Althea]

On that note, I have to laugh when people say, "lolol PC gamers so stupid, spending so much money on their machine when they could get a gaming machine for 1/5 of the price".
In a weird world, sure. You could build a capable gaming rig, minus screen, OS and peripherals, for £600. I spent £10 on my wireless adapter. For the 360, when it needed one, it was £50. I can get a controller for £10. 360 users pay £25-35 for an official one. Oops. Add in the cost of the big TV most console players like to use, and you've already come to £300-400.

I know it's almost PC elitism, but the amount you can do with an £800 PC w/ monitor etc far surpasses the amount you do with a 360. I can look for work (When I can be bothered - Ahem), I can play games from 20 years ago, I can watch YouTube and iPlayer and chat in an interface that's easy and intuitive to use.

Oh, and I get to choose my case. Ha!

[Shane]

I can play games from 20 years ago, I can watch YouTube and iPlayer and chat in an interface that's easy and intuitive to use.
A netbook can do all of that too.

[Hensler]

I don't get the fanboyism - why limit yourself? There are games I want to play that are exclusive to PC, Xbox, Playstation, PSP, DS, and Wii. Heck there are even iPhone and iPad games that I want to try. So instead of getting upset and trying to defend a single platform, I get them all. No need for the flame wars.

I'm not saying that this is a problem here at RPS, just the gaming community in general.

[J Arcane]

Honestly? There's very little that's exclusive these days. Most third parties are so eager to squeeze every dime from a title, that very little of the big stuff doesn't get a PC port save for sports titles. Even smaller indie titles on platforms like XBLA tend to wind their way onto PC eventually.

Which means missing out mainly on first-party titles, which IME have amounted to maybe one or two decent games a year, if that, from each of the major console makers.

I have a 360 for Forza Motorsport, because it's one of the only genres with no equivalent on PC, but I really don't play it much because there's more than enough else on PC to keep me occupied, and few games exclusive to the 360 to pull me to it. I don't like Halo, and I don't like Gears of War, so basically the 360 winds up being a home theater box that can occasionally play Forza and a few XBLA titles.

[vinraith]

I've got a staggering backlog of PC games as it is, the last thing I'm going to do is spend money on more gaming platforms so I can add to that backlog even more. I have no time to play what I've already got, why make it worse?

[thegooseking]

In a weird world, sure. You could build a capable gaming rig, minus screen, OS and peripherals, for £600. I spent £10 on my wireless adapter. For the 360, when it needed one, it was £50. I can get a controller for £10. 360 users pay £25-35 for an official one. Oops. Add in the cost of the big TV most console players like to use, and you've already come to £300-400.

Well, the controller thing is a bit different because Xbox 360 controllers are actually pretty good, compared with the cheap Saitek one I have for my PC which is pretty terrible. So yes, you can get cheaper controllers for the PC, but they're not great. The more expensive ones for the PC aren't great, either, for that matter.

But the rest is true.

[Althea]

I don't get the fanboyism - why limit yourself? There are games I want to play that are exclusive to PC, Xbox, Playstation, PSP, DS, and Wii. Heck there are even iPhone and iPad games that I want to try. So instead of getting upset and trying to defend a single platform, I get them all. No need for the flame wars.

I'm not saying that this is a problem here at RPS, just the gaming community in general.
Not everyone has the funds, time or space for all of them. I've found the PC to be better suited for me, and if I want to play a DS, I just borrow my mum's (I've only got two games - Anno: Create the World and Might & Magic: Clash of Heroes). I got an iPod Touch just for Mass Effect: Galaxy, but I've found it to be a very solid platform but sadly full of crap. I want a few console series, but not enough to warrant me buying a £170-250 box that'll just sit unused most of the time. I'd likely go for a PS3 if I got a console again, for Uncharted (I've heard a lot about it), Heavy Rain and Red Dead Redemption, but largely I've found that consoles have less games that appeal to me.

To me it's just that consoles aren't worth my time and money. As vinraith said, there's enough to play on the PC as it is, and a console just adds to it.


A netbook can do all of that too.
OK, Netbook + Big TV + Console = £600 maybe? A PC isn't far off that.


Well, the controller thing is a bit different because Xbox 360 controllers are actually pretty good, compared with the cheap Saitek one I have for my PC which is pretty terrible. So yes, you can get cheaper controllers for the PC, but they're not great. The more expensive ones for the PC aren't great, either, for that matter.
Oh, I know. I bought an official black 360 controller just for GTA IV, and it's one of the best purchases I've made. It's comfortable, smells nice (What?) and is really versatile. Plus it's really useful for Venetica and Fable 3.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I've got a staggering backlog of PC games as it is, the last thing I'm going to do is spend money on more gaming platforms so I can add to that backlog even more. I have no time to play what I've already got, why make it worse?
Yeah. I do like iOS/Android as a supplementary platform, though. Good for wasting a bit of time on the train when you don't feel like reading a book.

I can also see the appeal of a console if you've got a couch and a TV and all that, but that doesn't fit into my life at the moment. Still waiting for a nice, slightly bigger apartment to pop on the market in the small area where I want to live.

[J Arcane]

iOS has a lot of really great titles that remind me, or even are, great PC classics. Galaxy on Fire 2, Game Dev and Mega Mall Story, Avadon, some good stuff there.

[Rii]

Honestly? There's very little that's exclusive these days. Most third parties are so eager to squeeze every dime from a title, that very little of the big stuff doesn't get a PC port save for sports titles.

Fully half of the games from IGN's Top 100 Modern Games (http://au.ign.com/top/modern-games) list are exclusive to their respective platforms.

For my part, the current and upcoming PS3/PS360 exclusives whose collective weight recently convinced me to pick up that console (again) were:

PS3
Metal Gear Solid 4
Wipeout HD
Flower
Heavy Rain
Uncharted
The Last Guardian
ICO / Shadows of the Colossus HD
Valkyria Chronicles
Journey

PS360
Red Dead Redemption
Vanquish
Catherine
Metal Gear Solid HD Collection
Child of Eden

[J Arcane]

What can I say? I don't find your list that convincing. LA Noire was a serious disappointment for me, and while RDR would be nice, I do have a 360 and I'll probably grab it on the cheap eventually. Most of the rest of your list is Japanese stuff that doesn't really do it for me anymore.

Meanwhile, my whole list of potential console wants this coming season are all on PC too, save for Forza 4. Skyrim, Arkham City, Saints Row 3, Space Marine, all coming to PC as well as console.

[Rii]

What can I say? I don't find your list that convincing.

I'm not saying you should, merely pointing out that your assertion that there's very little that's exclusive these days is rather more subjective than you would have it. I would also argue that titles exclusive to a particular platform tend to be disproportionately, well, good. Or at least notable.

Personally I'm not so much interested in games that are merely 'decent', i.e. those which merely manage to provide unobjectionable entertainment for a few hours. I can fairly reliably get more than that and cheaper from books, television, film, reading about various subjects online or indeed from my own imagination. Those sorts of games have their place - particularly when they're enjoyed with other people - but they're not why I bother to show up as a gamer. My perception of the value of a platform is more associated with it having (or not having) great games. A platform holder will have a much easier time selling me on four great games than it will on 45,000 hours of 'fun' gameplay.

Having a robust catalogue is important for the health of the platform - as Nintendo has discovered to its chagrin - but not, for me as a gamer, decisive. When the Wii story wraps with Skyward Sword, my disappointment will be in terms of what its unique qualities did and didn't bring to the table, how they were and were not employed. In terms of the games I received for it and the value I perceive therein, the Wii and I are on good enough terms with each other.


LA Noire was a serious disappointment for me

Turns out it's coming to PC anyway so I removed it from the list, heh. I also could've removed it - as I did Bayonetta and God of War III - as falling under the category of 'stuff wot I might like to look at whilst I'm here' rather than being titles that actually sold the platform to me.

[Hensler]

Not everyone has the funds, time or space for all of them.

Okay, I should have been more clear. I get that not everyone can get all the systems, I just don't understand the need most people have to insult and tear down others' platforms of choice. But it's the Internet, so I guess people will fight and argue over anything.

[Althea]

Okay, I should have been more clear. I get that not everyone can get all the systems, I just don't understand the need most people have to insult and tear down others' platforms of choice. But it's the Internet, so I guess people will fight and argue over anything.
Oh, yeah. It's just territorial behaviour. It's like a pop lover hating metal for the fact it's not pop, or fiction readers looking down on genre (i.e. sci-fi or fantasy) fiction. They're so up themselves with adoration for Thing Y that anyone who doesn't like Thing Y, or is involved with something that isn't Thing Y, must clearly be an idiot.

[gwathdring]

I agree, though I think it really depends on the game. Cover systems are cinematic; they're abundant in movies with any kind of shootout, including Star Wars and just about any Western you care to name (of course, movies don't use cover 'systems' per se, but they use cover in the same way that cover systems do). They're not realistic, but they're not meant to be; they're meant to be cool. Where I think cover systems fail is when the game tries to serve two masters; when it can't decide whether it wants to be realistic or cinematic.

I suppose, ultimately, one of my less conventional views is implicit in that, namely that more realism is not always a good thing.

I agree. Well put.

[squirrel]

We Are So Bounded by Small World in Shooter Games

You guys give a very precise term for sci-fiction shooter game, "arena shooter", for shooter like Unreal Tournament or Quake, in which no more than 32 players play in a match. In my opinion, however, all shooter games (maybe for exception of MMO shooter, but I haven't tried any, Internet connection here cannot handle those) are arena shooter. This feeling is haunting me, who seek to satisfy the ambitions to explore and conquer the new world. Even for maps as large as those in Battlefield conquest mode, the constraint of boundary make me almost suffocate. I dont know, maybe I cannot wait till Battlefield 3 to quit shooting game all together.

All I want is game with world without boundary. RPG maybe a better alternative to shooter games.

[Shane]

"All I want is game with world without boundary."

"maybe for exception of MMO shooter, but I haven't tried any, Internet connection here cannot handle those"

There you go.

[DigitalSignalX]

We Are So Bounded by Small World in Shooter Games


All I want is game with world without boundary. RPG maybe a better alternative to shooter games.

Did you ever get to try Tabula Rasa before it was closed? I suspect it's the best of what you are longing for so far. While not completely open world, the maps were quite large and the gunplay was very visceral. I'm was hoping Stargate Universe would pick up where it left off, but perhaps the new Star Wars MMO can.

[squirrel]

Oh, so MMO is the only solution.

Telecom infrastructure here is subject to improvement here. I cannot play most the online game at home actually, even I own those games and has a okay-for-gaming computer, but bandwidth is not fulfilling the requirement. I have to play Bad Company 2 in some Internet Bars in town, even I have my copy of Bad Company 2 at home installed. Fortunately for cloud saving of online profile, access of online stats is never a problem, but that I have to pay extra for playing online.

Back to the topic, MMO distribution and operation in China is subject to government control. All Internet Bars here are required to be licensed by government so that government can keep track of our online activity. Yes, all Internet users have to register. For protectionism western or Japanese MMOs are not always approved, so that locally developed games can be saved from foreign competition. No kidding, there is serious, ongoing discussion of whether World of Warcraft should be banned, because "it is too addictive".

I guess I have missed most of the MMO. And DigitalSignalX, for the game you mentioned, I wikied and found that it is a South Korean published game (maybe American developed, but funded by a Korea firm). South Korea seems to be very keen in MMO industry, and it even has government support. Some government officials here has raised the concern that this clearly constitute an unfair competition over MMO market. No wonder they are so harsh on Korean developed MMO. So unfortunately I haven't yet had a taste on MMO, and will not have if my government insists on this policy. And I have to stress that even our government tries to lead us to believe this is politically motivated, I and most of the gamers here firmly believe that economic concern is still the primary concern.

[Althea]

[B]We Are Bound by Small World in Shooter Games
(Sorry, I had to correct that. The word "Bounded" makes me cringe. Don't worry, absolutely no-one seems to know how to use the word "bound", so you're not alone)

But, unless we have a randomly generated world, there has to be a boundary. Some worlds, like GTA IV, GTA:SA and Far Cry 2 are pretty damned big. Once you add in the expansions and the various internal zones in the 2 lastest Fallout games, they're big. There's only so much time and money that can be spent on a game, and as such there has to be boundaries. An MMO tends to have a bigger budget and a bigger team, and one consequence of an MMO is that every area needs to be properly designed and populated by the designers, because it has to keep a player occupied for a potentially longer period of time, but also through a variety of characters.

A single player game can get away with fairly bland areas. GTA IV, for example, has areas where not a lot is going on and where there's little interactive content for the player. Far Cry 2, again, has the same sort of design behind it. Just Cause 2 has one of the biggest game worlds currently around, and I'm sure parts of that are very bland or poorly designed.

MMOs too are bound by, well, the need for boundaries. Look at this map (http://i.imgur.com/uBWCz.jpg), which compares some of the larger game worlds (I think that Far Cry 2 map is actually incorrect, it looks to only be half of it). The World of Warcraft map is now outdated somewhat, but you can clearly see the borders and places that weren't made. Many of those borders between zones are necessary to stop the en masse slaughter of low-level players by high-level creatures, but also because it stops players venturing into zones that haven't either been implemented yet or areas where no development has taken place.

A boundless game can really only exist if it's randomly generated, and that's not always a perfect solution.

[squirrel]

@UnravThreads

Maybe that's why I feel like I have to escape from the cage of shooter game worlds, and there is no currently existing solution for the issue. I am absolutely sure that all gamers playing shooter games have the same feeling that I have. Even in "military simulator" like ARMA, I feel like I am imprisoned.

I guess that why Japanese RPGs sell well even to these days, with their mediocre gameplay and outdated graphics they still have the competitive edge: large or even limit-less game world.

[thegooseking]

(Sorry, I had to correct that. The word "Bounded" makes me cringe. Don't worry, absolutely no-one seems to know how to use the word "bound", so you're not alone)

'Bounded' is a perfectly appropriate word for this subject. I would say it applies more to the area itself than to the people in it, but it generally means "existing within a finite space". Essentially, an area is bounded by its boundaries.

[BathroomCitizen]

I know that it's not really what you're talking about, but Tribes 1 and Tribes 2 had maps with no boundaries, so they were 'infinite'.

Very free-form games.

[Althea]

'Bounded' is a perfectly appropriate word for this subject. I would say it applies more to the area itself than to the people in it, but it generally means "existing within a finite space". Essentially, an area is bounded by its boundaries.
Yes, but that particular form wasn't correctly used. And it just sounds so... wrong. It reminds me of my old job where people kept saying they wanted documents "bounded" (It's bound!). A more correct sentence would be close to the one I changed it to. A minor quibble, I know.

[Fumarole]

I'm not sure about the newer ones, but the original Delta Force had ridiculously large maps. I once scored a kill at over 1,000 meters in that game playing multiplayer. It took several shots, but I got him in the end.

[J Arcane]

The Delta Force games were awesome for sniping. Pretty much all I ever did was take a Barrett loadout, and find the nearest ridge and snipe from at least a KM away.

[Sharkticon]

Less conventional views? I have many.

Assassin's Creed 1 is better than Assassin's Creed 2
AssCreed 1 was a repetitive, below average game with an interesting premise and interesting concept (same can be said for all AssCreeds). The move to Renaisance Italy for AssCreed 2, however, killed the franshise for me. It's all to do with 'level design' and platforming. The middle eastern cities of AssCreed 1 had enough variety in topography and building height/shape to make the climbing and 'platforming' interesting, and it was more or less the only redeeming feature of the game. Most buildings in AssCreed 2's cities are the same height (typical of European cities) with the odd tower or two here and there. Taking away the setting, this leaves the game with extremely bland 'platforming'.

Prince of Persia (2008) is worth playing
Yes the game is more or less on rails, the combat is pure QTE and there is no danger whatsoever thanks to your magical companion. But I still thought this game was worth playing (and worth buying). The art and music are both well done, and exploring levels after you've cleansed them is actually quite enjoyable, collecting hard to reach orbs and so on.

Dragon Age Origins combat is horrible
It isn't tactical. It's crap. It's basically simplified standard post-WoW MMO combat masquerading as some sort of RealTimeWithPause system. Press 1, press 2, press 5, wait for cooldowns, press 1, press 3 etc. etc. repeat for every single fight in the game. Different enemies don't require different tactics or spells or ability combinations to beat them. Everyone auto heals after fights, teammates suddenly get back up again, enemy variety is laughable, encounters are bland and predictable, herp-ta-derp-ta-derpity derp.

MOBA mechanics are crap
MOBA (DOTA, HON, LOL etc.) game mechanics are intrinsically rubbish. The last hit/deny system might sound good on paper, but is utterly shit in practice, with heroes frantically clicking the ground to avoid their heroes from autoattacking while watching creep HP bars in a game of creep whackamole. It is not fun.

Demigod is by far the best MOBA game
By far the most beautiful too, with melee heroes that actually play like melee heroes.

Gameplay is most important, not storytelling or narrative
This might seem obvious and not-so-unconventional, but it must be stated and re-stated in this age of what one might call 'storyfagatronics'. People who lament "oh when are we going to see better stories in games?!?!?" should perhaps switch to other, less interactive media. Overemphasis on story, narrative, making things cinematic etc. diverts crucial attention away from the more important issues in gaming today, such as over-'accessibility'/simplification/'streamlining'/dumbing-down, the significant reduction of interaction in AAA big budget titles, the fact that many excellent gameplay ideas from the past seem to have been forgotten by developers...

[bwion]

I don't really care about DRM

Or rather, I only care about DRM when it creates an inconvenience. As a business practice, I think it's stupid and self-defeating for the most part, but I have no real objection to a game company trying (however futile it might be) to prevent people from getting hold of their games without paying for them. Stuff like always-on DRM is objectionable because it makes my ability to play a game for which I have paid a not-insignificant amount of money contingent on factors that neither I nor they can necessarily control, not because it's DRM And DRM Is Bad. (See also: why I have no problem with Steam. I dislike DRM that makes my life more difficult. Steam is DRM which usually makes my life easier.)

I don't really care if a game is available on Steam

I buy lots of games from Steam. I buy games elsewhere, too. And aside from occasionally figuring out where and how to get updates, it really makes very little difference where I bought the game from. I launch all my games from a shortcut on my computer rather than from within the client, so I don't really even have to know where I bought my game about 95% of the time.

I did not enjoy Beyond Good and Evil

I'm not saying it's a bad game. (Please don't hurt me!) I found what I saw of the story a little simplistic, but the character designs were cool, and the general feel of things was like being inside a Miyazaki film. Which I adored, right up until the point when I actually tried to play the thing, and found myself enjoying it less and less. I hated the hovercraft races and the hovercraft fights and everything to do with that stupid hovercraft, I didn't much care for the fighting and platforming stuff, I found the stealth bits obnoxious, and I think the only thing I actually enjoyed was the photography. None of these, were, I think, actually flaws in the game. (Aside from the hovercraft which had no redeeming features whatsoever and should be purged from existence with fire). Just not my thing, I guess.

[Hensler]

Demigod is by far the best MOBA game
By far the most beautiful too, with melee heroes that actually play like melee heroes.
[/B]


Does this still have an active community? I was interested, but forgot about it after the botched launch.

[Sharkticon]

Does this still have an active community? I was interested, but forgot about it after the botched launch.

I suppose there still is a small community. Though I only ever play it co-op with friends.

[FunnyB]

Half-Life 2 wasn't that great.
Definitely not worth all the praise it has recieved over the years. The shooter-bits were so-so and the story wasn't that good. The physics were definitely groundbreaking, but the physics alone do not make a great game.

Saint's Row 2 (on the 360) was way better than GTA IV.
I bought GTA IV 3 years ago. I have still not finished it. The story dragged on WAY too long, and the constant nagging to go bowling with your "friends" was a ever present annoyance. Saint's Row 2 on the other hand, was way over the top, consistently fun and had great character customization. Lets just hope Saint's Row The Third gets a better version on the PC this time. The port of Saint's Row 2 was horrible.

Mass Effect 1's inventory system wasn't that great.
People complain that the inventory system was simplified in Mass Effect 2. I say: GOOD!
The original's inventory system was a cluttered mess, since you recieved new weapons and weapon mods for just about everything you did in the game. The weapon mods didn't have that much of a visible impact on the gameplay, and it was totally possible playing through the game and changing weapons on your characters only once or twice. I know, I did it. I never bought a new weapon, and by the end, the inventory was filled with so many useless weapons that I couldn't pick up anymore. Why have so many weapons when it doesn't make a difference?
Mass effect 2 had much more streamlined and enjoyable weapon system.

[Nalano]

Mass Effect 1's inventory system wasn't that great.


People thought ME1's inventory was great? Which people? I'm'a smack 'em.

[Land Squid]

Yeah, I thought it was conventional to think that ME1's inventory system was bad. As much as I like ME2, though, I think it would have been better if they had made a better designed inventory system, rather than just removing most of it.

[Keep]

Half-Life 2 wasn't that great.Definitely not worth all the praise it has recieved over the years. The shooter-bits were so-so and the story wasn't that good. The physics were definitely groundbreaking, but the physics alone do not make a great game.

I'd get behind this. Half Life 2 was way more generic than I'd expected, given how people treated it like...well, even more incredible than Half Life 1.

It definitely was not more incredible than Half Life 1.

It's my own fault, I was expecting to get blown awayyyy. And I wasn't. It was good, and some bits were great (walking underneath that bridge has stayed vividly with me since the first time I played it) but most of it? Yeah, good. That's all.

[Wizardry]

Both Half-Life games pretty much suck, actually.

[Keep]

Thanks Wizardry.

[thegooseking]

Gameplay is most important, not storytelling or narrative
This might seem obvious and not-so-unconventional, but it must be stated and re-stated in this age of what one might call 'storyfagatronics'. People who lament "oh when are we going to see better stories in games?!?!?" should perhaps switch to other, less interactive media. Overemphasis on story, narrative, making things cinematic etc. diverts crucial attention away from the more important issues in gaming today, such as over-'accessibility'/simplification/'streamlining'/dumbing-down, the significant reduction of interaction in AAA big budget titles, the fact that many excellent gameplay ideas from the past seem to have been forgotten by developers...

Don't worry. We're all entitled to be utterly and completely wrong sometimes.

[Nalano]

It's my own fault, I was expecting to get blown awayyyy.

Well, what did you expect? HypehypehypehypeHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPE oh its alright then.


Thanks Wizardry.

Juror #10: Listen to me. Listen.
Juror #4: I have. Now sit down and don't open your mouth again.

[Rii]

I can't say I've ever been part of the Half-Life faithful either. They're decent enough shooters, but that's all really. Not sure I actually would've bought HL2 if it hadn't been required for CS:S and DoD:S.


Mass Effect 1's inventory system wasn't that great.
People complain that the inventory system was simplified in Mass Effect 2. I say: GOOD!
The original's inventory system was a cluttered mess, since you recieved new weapons and weapon mods for just about everything you did in the game. The weapon mods didn't have that much of a visible impact on the gameplay, and it was totally possible playing through the game and changing weapons on your characters only once or twice. I know, I did it. I never bought a new weapon, and by the end, the inventory was filled with so many useless weapons that I couldn't pick up anymore. Why have so many weapons when it doesn't make a difference?
Mass effect 2 had much more streamlined and enjoyable weapon system.

I think it was more that (some) people disliked the simplification of Mass Effect 2 than actually liked Mass Effect's inventory system. They wanted an improved inventory system, not no inventory system.

[Nalano]

I can't say I've ever been part of the Half-Life faithful either. They're decent enough shooters, but that's all really. Not sure I actually would've bought HL2 if it hadn't been required for CS:S and DoD:S.

---

I think it was more that (some) people disliked the simplification of Mass Effect 2 than actually liked Mass Effect's inventory system. They wanted an improved inventory system, not no inventory system.

I think the HL thing nowadays has a little element of Seinfeld Is Unfunny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny), which may confuse the issue.

ME2 didn't make me miss ME1's inventory system. ME2 made me forget why an inventory system was necessary. That doesn't necessarily mean that ME3 can't benefit from a good inventory system, but they'd still have to do it right.

[Keep]

Well, what did you expect? HypehypehypehypeHYPEHYPEHYPEHYPE oh its alright then.

Yeah pretty much. What did I expect? More innovation. A grander sense of "Wow, first person games are irrevocably changed by this game". Less runny-shooty challenges, and more of HL 1's tension, loneliness, variety. Diversity not just in terms of "How do I defeat this bad guy?" but more "How do I interact with this world?"

My own fault though. I should've been more cynical, more attuned to what was really being said. And it was a damn fine game. But just well oh well.


I think the HL thing nowadays has a little element of Seinfeld Is Unfunny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny), which may confuse the issue.

Yes for HL1, not so sure for HL2. How different would modern FPSes be if it had never existed?

[Nalano]

Yes for HL1, not so sure for HL2.

I was speaking more to HL1. HL2 was more of the same, which ain't bad, but also ain't ground-breaking.

[J Arcane]

Both the Half-Life games still have more going on in the brains department than any of their peers.

It continues to amaze me that basically everything that series did to set itself apart is an unlearned lesson for the rest of the genre.

[FunnyB]

I think it was more that (some) people disliked the simplification of Mass Effect 2 than actually liked Mass Effect's inventory system. They wanted an improved inventory system, not no inventory system.

Yes, maybe I phrased it a bit wrong. What I meant was that the "no inventory"-system from ME2 was far more preferable to the crappy inventory system in ME1.

[Wengart]

I'm not sure about the newer ones, but the original Delta Force had ridiculously large maps. I once scored a kill at over 1,000 meters in that game playing multiplayer. It took several shots, but I got him in the end.

I remember playing Delta Force 2 on dial-up when I was 11 or 12. I joined this 50 player server where nearly everyone was sniping and I spawned in the middle of this valley covered in tall grass. I went prone and started taking ineffectual shots a people forever away. Anyway this guy pops up maybe 10 feet in front with a knife and rushes me. I'm shitting my pants at this point and fire off my entire clip without hitting him. When he is literally right in front of me, about to stab me to death, he gets shot through the chest by a sniper. It was the single coolest moment I ever had in that game and can recall the scene perfectly 9 years later.

[riadsala]

Anybody else agree that too many games are getting made these days? And I'm not just talking about the yearly iterations of CoD, FIFA, etc. Games in general. And so except for a couple of exceptions, very few titles get played in much depth by more than a small handful of people. I think it would be nice if the release cycle slowed down and was thinned out a bit. Obviously that's not going to happen, but, it can be made to work economically (see Valve and Blizzard). It would be nice if more developers strived to make something interesting, thought provoking and incredible.

[Mohorovicic]

Yes for HL1, not so sure for HL2. How different would modern FPSes be if it had never existed?

This question can be easily answered by asking another question: What new did HL2 bring to the FPS genre?

The answer is, of course, not a goddamn thing.

So there you go.

[Wizardry]

This question can be easily answered by asking another question: What new did HL2 bring to the FPS genre?

The answer is, of course, not a goddamn thing.

So there you go.
What did Half-Life bring to the genre?

[Nalano]

What did Half-Life bring to the genre?

Realistic level design (places looked like people actually worked in Black Mesa)
Fluid level design (Level 1 flowed into level 2 and one could backtrack such that "levels" didn't matter)
Variegated level design (different things to do besides kill enemies, plenty of unique venues)
Realistic animation (first game to have models with multiple bones)
Cinematic experience (first game to make extensive use of scripting)
Innovative storyboard (presents a cohesive arc with a protagonist with his own backstory and motivation)
Innovative sound (music changed depending on the action)
Innovative characterization (protagonist is outclassed by his opponents / protagonist isn't a space marine)
Innovative enemy AI (enemies take cover and flush out player with grenades)

Y'know, things that have been copied so many times they're now how the FPS genre is defined. Half Life brought all that to the fore.

[Spakkenkhrist]

What did Half-Life bring to the genre?

Do you like any games in the genre?

[Nalano]

Do you like any games in the genre?

1998 might be a bit too modern for his tastes.

[Wizardry]

Realistic level design (places looked like people actually worked in Black Mesa)
Fluid level design (Level 1 flowed into level 2 and one could backtrack such that "levels" didn't matter)
Variegated level design (different things to do besides kill enemies, plenty of unique venues)
Realistic animation (first game to have models with multiple bones)
Cinematic experience (first game to make extensive use of scripting)
Innovative storyboard (presents a cohesive arc with a protagonist with his own backstory and motivation)
Innovative sound (music changed depending on the action)
Innovative characterization (protagonist is outclassed by his opponents / protagonist isn't a space marine)
Innovative enemy AI (enemies take cover and flush out player with grenades)

Y'know, things that have been copied so many times they're now how the FPS genre is defined. Half Life brought all that to the fore.
Ultima Underworld did almost all of those many years earlier. Plus it had a dialogue system, a trading system, levelling up, non-combat skills, multiple quest solutions, factions, non-linear level design, stealth, physics and side quests. Sure, it's not really a "shooter" but that's largely meaningless considering it would take little effort to add guns to an Ultima Underworld type game.

[gundrea]

Ultima Underworld had grenades?

[Tikey]

AAAAAND THERE IT IS!

It's almost like a perfect punchline. (or a broken record)

[Mohorovicic]

Ultima Underworld did almost all of those many years earlier.

1. Nope
2. Even if it was Pe, irrelevant. Herzog Zwei came out before Dune 2 and no one gives a shit because the market and genre is changed by successful titles, not whoever goes first.

[Nalano]

Ultima Underworld had grenades?

Weren't early Ultima games once called "RPG/Adventure hybrids" because you could talk to NPCs and solve puzzles more complicated than "insert key in door?"

I wonder if Wizardry had to deal with proto-Wizardrys before him.

[Tikey]

1. Nope
2. Even if it was Pe, irrelevant. Herzog Zwei came out before Dune 2 and no one gives a shit because the market and genre is changed by successful titles, not whoever goes first.

That's interesting.
I always remember a professor of mine saying something like "there were Kafkian authors before Kafka, and those authors are recognised precisely because of Kafka."

[Keep]

What did Half-Life bring to the genre?


Ultima Underworld did almost all of those many years earlier.

Half Life and Ultima Underworld belong in the same genre?? o_O

[Wizardry]

Weren't early Ultima games once called "RPG/Adventure hybrids" because you could talk to NPCs and solve puzzles more complicated than "insert key in door?"
Ultima Underworld isn't Ultima. It's a first person action spin off. You obviously haven't played it.


Half Life and Ultima Underworld belong in the same genre?? o_O
First person action? Yes. If you want to distinguish between shooting and swinging a sword in real-time first person then we should distinguish between shooting guns and swinging swords in top down turn-based. But even that's irrelevant because Ultima Underworld had ranged weapons and spells that you "shoot".

[Keep]

First person action? Yes. If you want to distinguish between shooting and swinging a sword in real-time first person then we should distinguish between shooting guns and swinging swords in top down turn-based. But even that's irrelevant because Ultima Underworld had ranged weapons and spells that you "shoot".

C'mon dude. That's farcical. Ultima Underworld, with role-playing and non-linearity and a fantasy setting and character creation and skill points and interactive objects and a magic system.

And Half Life.

These are not the same genre.

[Spakkenkhrist]

You obviously haven't played it.

Do you often find yourself starting sentences with "Actually I think you'll find..."?

[Wizardry]

C'mon dude. That's farcical. Ultima Underworld, with role-playing and non-linearity and a fantasy setting and character creation and skill points and interactive objects and a magic system.

And Half Life.

These are not the same genre.
Okay then. Explain to me why Half-Life should be praised for adding guns to a game that features nothing new.

[BobsLawnService]

It's a bit random but one of the things about the original Half Life was those face hugger things. At the same time everyone was raging about the small jumping frog things in Daikatana and how awful they were but nobody complained about the small jumpy annoying critters in HL.

I also never quite got the fuss about the original either.

[Stijn]

Okay then. Explain to me why Half-Life should be praised for adding guns to a game that features nothing new.
Half-Life is just Ultima Underworld with guns!

[Spakkenkhrist]

Ultima is just Frogger with quests!

[Wizardry]

Half-Life is just Ultima Underworld with guns!
Except it's linear with only one way of doing things. And without anything else that Ultima Underworld did well. Therefore Half-Life is overrated.

[Althea]

Except it's linear with only one way of doing things. And without anything else that Ultima Underworld did well. Therefore Half-Life is overrated.
I think most people would tell you that Half-Life is overrated, but very few will made ridonkulous comparisons to Ultima.

[gundrea]

I believe Ultima Underworld was underrated.

See what I did there?

[laneford]

Why does something good within a genre always have to bring something new to the genre? Why is it not acceptable for it just to be brilliant within the genre?

/throws out most of his films and cds.

[BobsLawnService]

Wizardry is an odd puppy indeed. If you're not going to enjoy a game then at least don't enjoy it on its own merits.

[Wizardry]

I think most people would tell you that Half-Life is overrated, but very few will made ridonkulous comparisons to Ultima.
The comparisons were made because Nalano claimed that Half-Life was the first to do a bunch of things that Ultima Underworld did before Wolfenstein 3D was even released. That's the only reason. Half-Life shouldn't get credit for all that. It's just an extremely linear FPS and that's what it should be known for.

[laneford]

It's just an extremely linear FPS and that's what it should be known for.

This is not, necessarily, a bad thing. (Not that you said it was, unless you did, but I just wanted to throw that out there)

[Nalano]

Ultima is just Frogger with quests!

Frogger is just pong with obstacles!

[Keep]

Except it's linear with only one way of doing things. And without anything else that Ultima Underworld did well. Therefore Half-Life is overrated.

Ok, Wizardry, I spent a good five minutes writing dumb-founded snarky replies to your dismissal of Half Life, but I just got pissed off at myself for being petty about this.

So I'll assume good faith. Maybe Half Life left you cold and you genuinely can't understand the fuss, maybe that's all. So I'll try to explain to you what I felt made Half Life special.


In a nutshell: it was cinematic. And yet it was a videogame.

You know how you can tell someone's a good actor by how you find yourself really believing he exists outside the camera being pointed at him? Half Life (to me) had a similar immersion. It was a stage, it was linear, it was scripted, it was a facade. But it felt so complete, so well-done, so organic, that I was taken in.

Being scripted gave it a narrative weight and depth that non-linearity just can't. There were no inconsequential details to leave out of your Half Life anecdotes, no jarring details to be re-cut to fit. Every bit was already story. It was captivating.

And it was so because above this highly limited and predetermined story was a sensation of freedom, of involvement, of volition. It was like a good movie or novel, where your feelings about what the hero should do were met with intelligent writing that saw the hero do, yeah, exactly what you'd thought he should.

There was an atmosphere, a sense of place, a - I want to say "mythology" but I want to avoid suggesting "chronology" with it, what's a good word for that? "Setting"? "World"?
There were simple characters you identified as people, not mechanical interactions.
There were sequences, cutscenes-without-the-cut, situations that far outstripped your expectations of what a FPS could offer.
And there was no down time. No derailment of plot, no noodling or grinding or inventory management or map befuddlement or "USE chewing gum foil WITH blown fuse" moments.

It was a hugely cinematic experience.

And yet it wasn't. There was no deep focus, no close-ups, no panning, none of what the language of films would understand as cinematic.

It was a new kind of story. Something videogames could do, could say, without resorting to aping books or movies or comics.

[Mohorovicic]

Which is ironic, since nowodays when Call of Duty series pushes the cinematic experience to the limit(and far beyond what Half-Life had to offer), people bitch about it.

[Tikey]

The difference between Half-Life and Ultima Underworld is that there wasn't a paradigm shift after Underworld like there was with Half-Life.

[Althea]

Which is ironic, since nowodays when Call of Duty series pushes the cinematic experience to the limit(and far beyond what Half-Life had to offer), people bitch about it.
I think the problem with CoD is less to do with the actual gameplay of each game, but more to do with the millions of tosspots who play it, the constant rehashing and the over-inflated pricing.

[Serenegoose]

Which is ironic, since nowodays when Call of Duty series pushes the cinematic experience to the limit(and far beyond what Half-Life had to offer), people bitch about it.

Not really. Halflife was cinematic in a way that remembered it was still a videogame - it remembered to let you play it - Call of Duty, or rather the more recent Call of Duty games, are cinematic in a AAA movie way - it has no qualms with letting you do almost nothing whatsoever except follow the leader. It's just that we've got this situation where we're trying to apply a word (cinematic) that doesn't really fit to a situation it doesn't really apply to, simply because we don't have any better words yet.

[Tikey]

Which is ironic, since nowodays when Call of Duty series pushes the cinematic experience to the limit(and far beyond what Half-Life had to offer), people bitch about it.

But Half-Life came out in 1998. You can't look at a game like that without context.

[Nalano]

Which is ironic, since nowodays when Call of Duty series pushes the cinematic experience to the limit(and far beyond what Half-Life had to offer), people bitch about it.

1) Half-Life did it first.
2) Modern Warfare WAS lauded - especially for the death of your protagonist after the nuke went off. It's Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops that made people start calling foul.

@ Keep

I'm kinda sick of this "but it's on raaaaails" silliness, like all games must be open-worlders where you can peek in every pot on every stove in every house. Narrative comes with limitations (this happens here, now, and you have to live with it even if you don't like it) and the limitations in good narrative are practically seamless because it's as if the protagonist is making all the choices you would have made in his position.

[Snargelfargen]

In response to whoever said Half Life 2 didn't innovate:

I think it actually did some really interesting things in terms of game development. The iterative play-testing Valve did produced a very polished experience, and that experience really shows in Portal. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, the devs watched playtesters throughout development, and actually changed the game significantly according to what players did.)

It's probably also the first fps to have a companion that wasn't a useless meat shield constantly chiding the player to hurry up.

The Episodes also had some neat innovations. The levels in the dark, where you had to highlight enemies with a flashlight and flares for Alex were really cool, and something that hadn't been tried before. Well except for Doom 3, but that was silly.

[Wizardry]

The difference between Half-Life and Ultima Underworld is that there wasn't a paradigm shift after Underworld like there was with Half-Life.
So we can praise Half-Life for destroying gaming? Sounds good to me.


*stuff*
That was the most pretentious post I've ever read on this forum. "It was, yet it wasn't." Make your mind up will you? You've just listed a bunch of your own feelings while playing the game without mentioning anything concrete. The best I can hope for is for you to treat Ultima Underworld with the same level of pretentiousness so I can do some sort of comparison, because otherwise there's just nothing here to talk about. Half-Life to me screamed linear scripted shooter. The game had no deeper meaning, subtlety or intelligence about it. However, Ultima Underworld did. If you can't explain to me why Half-Life isn't overrated then perhaps someone else can.

[Keep]

EDIT: Never mind. I got heated, I'll withdraw it. Don't fan flames.

[Land Squid]

If you can't explain to me why Half-Life isn't overrated then perhaps someone else can.

I'm probably going to going to regret this, but I'll have a go. For me the appeal of half life (i think you're talking about the first one?) isn't anything complicated. It creates a really absorbing atmosphere within a convincing complex, and constantly provides you with new experiences throughout. For me first person shooters don't need to have a deep message, they just need to make me feel like I'm there, and half life acheived that really well. Things like the fact that it hardly ever takes control from you, the organic nature of the 'levels', the multitude of interesting weapons and enemies. It made black mesa seem like a real place with good map design, yet even though it was mostly confined to the same place it still had varied environments.

I haven't played ultima underworld, but I'm confused by your comparison. From what I understand it is a medieval fantasy game set within dungeons, right? That's a big change in setting which means much more than just a texture change.

[Wizardry]

I'm probably going to going to regret this, but I'll have a go. For me the appeal of half life (i think you're talking about the first one?) isn't anything complicated. It creates a really absorbing atmosphere within a convincing complex, and constantly provides you with new experiences throughout. For me first person shooters don't need to have a deep message, they just need to make me feel like I'm there, and half life acheived that really well. Things like the fact that it hardly ever takes control from you, the organic nature of the 'levels', the multitude of interesting weapons and enemies. It made black mesa seem like a real place with good map design, yet even though it was mostly confined to the same place it still had varied environments.

I haven't played ultima underworld, but I'm confused by your comparison. From what I understand it is a medieval fantasy game set within dungeons, right? That's a big change in setting which means much more than just a texture change.
Like I said, the comparison was made when someone made out that Half-Life actually innovated in those areas. It didn't. Specifically:


Realistic level design (places looked like people actually worked in Black Mesa)
And the Stygian Abyss is an exceptionally well crafted dungeon with plenty of lore and inhabitants. It feels lived in. It is lived in. The dungeon feels like an entity in itself. Alive. It is not an empty dungeon full of combat encounters. It's a dungeon full of puzzles, quests and NPCs that fit so well into the actual dungeon design.


Fluid level design (Level 1 flowed into level 2 and one could backtrack such that "levels" didn't matter)
You can (and probably should) backtrack regularly in Ultima Underworld. You may be near the bottom of the dungeon but you can still climb back up to the start again. Sometimes you need to talk to people in a previous area. Sometimes you might need to go down to a lower level before being able to explore sections of upper levels. The design is very fluid indeed.


Variegated level design (different things to do besides kill enemies, plenty of unique venues)
Yep. Just like in Ultima Underworld. You can even stealth your way through a lot of the game. There's plenty of talking, exploring and puzzle solving. You can use spells to bypass entire areas.


Cinematic experience (first game to make extensive use of scripting)
The most stupid and incorrect statement of all time.


Innovative storyboard (presents a cohesive arc with a protagonist with his own backstory and motivation)
Uh, like lots of other games? This doesn't even mean anything concrete anyway. I'm sure Ultima Underworld does whatever you think Half-Life does with regards to an "innovative storyboard". If not, definitely Ultima Underworld II.


Innovative sound (music changed depending on the action)
Ultima Underworld actually had this, believe it or not. Context sensitive music.


Innovative characterization (protagonist is outclassed by his opponents / protagonist isn't a space marine)
Yeah, because we all know that the Avatar is merely a space marine who isn't really a space marine at all but is in fact someone far deeper than a scientist who happens to hit things with crowbars. Someone who is actually from Earth but periodically gets called on to step through a portal and help the land of Britannia in times of trouble. Someone who ascended to avatarhood by proving to be the most virtuous being in the land. Someone who is a virtual Jesus-like character to native Britannians. Someone who feels more at home in a distant world, among friends, than in the more familiar real world where no one knows of your feats.


Innovative enemy AI (enemies take cover and flush out player with grenades)
Awesome. Enemies in Ultima Underworld respond to things like sound and light. The AI might not be "challenging" AI but there's definitely a level of realness about it that elevates it above the countless Doom clones. And remember, it came out before Wolfenstein 3D and was more advanced than Doom.

[Tikey]

So we can praise Half-Life for destroying gaming? Sounds good to me.

Let me see if I understand. Half-Life destroyed gaming by doing what Ultima Underworld did first?

[Wizardry]

Let me see if I understand. Half-Life destroyed gaming by doing what Ultima Underworld did first?
No. For killing the FPS genre.

[Tikey]

How? If according to you everything Half-Life did differently was already done by Ultima Underworld?

[Nalano]

How? If according to you everything Half-Life did differently was already done by Ultima Underworld?

Don't you see?

Ultima killed gaming.

[Wizardry]

How? If according to you everything Half-Life did differently was already done by Ultima Underworld?
Everything Half-Life did that can be considered good. Half-Life's linearity destroyed the genre. If FPSs had followed on from Ultima Underworld (like what System Shock did) then the genre would actually be good. It turned out to be completely shit, though, with Half-Life being the one to ruin it.

[Tikey]

But isn't System shock a FPS/RPG hybrid, falling out of the "pure FPS" genre which Half-Life is part of?

[J Arcane]

I need a button that not only ignores, but deletes all of Wizardry's posts and those that respond to them.

[8-bit]

That was the most pretentious post I've ever read on this forum.

you don't read your own posts do you.

I have to applaud you though because you have, what, ten or so people going here? thats gota be some new trolling record for you.

and you guys, shame on you for feeding him.

[8-bit]

I need a button that not only ignores, but deletes all of Wizardry's posts and those that respond to them.

https://addons.opera.com/addons/extensions/details/kick-ass/1.0.3/

fun times!

[Wizardry]

But isn't System shock a FPS/RPG hybrid, falling out of the "pure FPS" genre which Half-Life is part of?
The first one? Not really. The second one is, though.


you don't read your own posts do you.

I have to applaud you though because you have, what, ten or so people going here? thats gota be some new trolling record for you.

and you guys, shame on you for feeding him.
Yeah because everyone who dares speak out against Half-Life is a troll. Face it. Your favourite game is overrated.

[Tikey]

The first one? Not really. The second one is, though.

I always thought it to be. But yeah... better not start discussing definitions... again.
So as the other lovely people recommended, let's leave it here, was an interesting interchange.
Thanks for all the fish.

[8-bit]

Yeah because everyone who dares speak out against Half-Life is a troll. Face it. Your favourite game is overrated.

half life isn't my favourite game, I was referring to your tendency to present what on the surface appear to be well thought out arguments, but on closer inspection are filled with condescending or downright insulting remarks to the person you are quoting.

[Land Squid]

It does seem like you go out of your way to be confrontational, wizardry.

[Wizardry]

Thread title: "Your Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming"

[Krans]

I found Icewind Dale completely inaccessible. There were lots of meaningless sliders with no information on what they did, then my party walked out of the starting settlement and got killed by wolves. Then I ejected the CD and haven't got it out ever again. :-(

[Nalano]

Thread title: "Your Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming"

You really don't have to post anything further than "Wizardry was here." Pretty much everything will be assumed from those words alone.

[Smashbox]

I need a button that not only ignores, but deletes all of Wizardry's posts and those that respond to them.

I know. Argh. Just... stop it.

EDIT: I found the ignore function on the user page.

[kyrieee]

Yes Half-Life is overrated because Ultima Underworld came out before it.
Wait, what?

Half-Life was a more engaging experience simply because technology had advanced to allow for a more engaging experience. More people played it which meant it had more impact and since it had a lot of impact it's not overrated. Also, regardless if you think UO did the same things as HL half a decade earlier, no proper FPS was or had been doing them. HL was a watershed moment for the FPS genre.

[laneford]

Maybe, maybe both Half-Life and Ultima Underworld are good games? Just a thought.

Anyone have any other Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming?

(Please!)

[Land Squid]

Thread title: "Your Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming"

But you only ever seem to write posts that explain why popular and critically acclaimed games are in fact terrible in a lot of threads, not just this one. Of course there's nothing wrong with having different opinions to most people, but when that's all you ever contribute, and when you are so resistant to considering other people's point of view, it can get a little annoying.

[Keep]

Ok, back on track:

Replayability is a bad concept

You only play it once, and if you miss out on anything, tough shit you shoulda paid more attention. (I know a few guys who hold similar views about jazz albums.)

Designing a game with multiple go-arounds in mind interferes with your emphasis on presenting an immediate experience. That leads to a worse game. That is sad.

[Land Squid]

Maybe, maybe both Half-Life and Ultima Underworld are good games? Just a thought.

Anyone have any other Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming?

(Please!)

I have a good one! I really liked empire total war. Yes it had lots of bugs, and the AI wasn't great, but I thought the fact that you could control nations across three different different continents AND fight detailed real time battles at any point on those continents AND it looked gorgeous down to the smallest detail was incredible. As a exercise in pure strategy it wasn't good, but as a spectacle I loved it, and as far as I know no other game has attempted what it did to the same extent.

[Smashbox]

I have a good one! I really liked empire total war. Yes it had lots of bugs, and the AI wasn't great, but I thought the fact that you could control nations across three different different continents AND fight detailed real time battles at any point on those continents AND it looked gorgeous down to the smallest detail was incredible. As a exercise in pure strategy it wasn't good, but as a spectacle I loved it, and as far as I know no other game has attempted what it did to the same extent.

Agree with this... I really got into this game when it came out. It looked and sound and smelled just like it should. I think it got a bad rap.

[Land Squid]

I think the complaints about were justified, and I can totally understand if you didn't like it, but I did think some people missed the bigger picture, or at least didn't give enough credit to it's ambition.

[Lambchops]

Ok, back on track:

Replayability is a bad concept

You only play it once, and if you miss out on anything, tough shit you shoulda paid more attention. (I know a few guys who hold similar views about jazz albums.)


Or you could play it again and be joyful when you discover the bit you miss out the first time. As long as the game is good enough to be enjoyable while missing out those bits.

One example that come to mind is Deus Ex. I enjoyed it perfectly well the first time and despite exploring all over the place still managed to miss the entire section with the MJ12 base in the New York sewers. That's a fair chunk of game right there and finding it the second time was a pleasant suprise that makes me look back at the game even more fondly.

Or how about Grim Fandango (or indeed many other adventure games) where the first time through I was rewarded by feeling smart when solving dialogue based puzzles by choosing the correct answer first time whereas on subsequent playthroughs discovered that many of the most witty bits of dialogue come from getting things wrong or extraneous chatter.

Or how about Alpha Protocol. I'll admit to not replaying it yet but I certainly didn't feel like I was missing out on anything, while still knowing that a second playthrough could be very different. Although due to its nature as a graphic novel choose your own adventure style thing I think Masq is still the best game out there at achieving that sort of feeling. Fahrenheit has a pretty good fist of this as well (say what you like about the craziness of the ending section, I know I have!).

i guess the last examples are most pertinent when saying that designing with multiple go arouunds doesn't neccessarily lead to a bad game but this is dependent on being a good game designer by making it so that on first playthrough the player doesn't feel like they are missing out on anything, even though they have. Or alternatively having the balls to go the Witcher 2 route and put a "game diverges here" bit in the middle rather than at the end, but there ain't many out there who have the resources to risk that sort of move.

[Keep]

@Lampchops: Well I wouldn't want it to apply to every game (just as jazz aficionados wouldn't want it applied to every album, rock and classical and folk and all).

But imagine playing something like Deus Ex and knowing you'd only get to play it once. Imagine how much value and involvement would arise. Sure you'd miss out on a lot, but that's the whole point.

Imagine how much the consequences of your decisions'd weigh on you, knowing you can't just load it up and see the alternate ending in half an hour's time. And yeah you're free to listen to a friend's account or watch a video of what you didn't catch, but when you're playing, it's different. It's your game, your experience, your shot.

[vinraith]

Thread title: "Your Less Conventional Views on Games and Gaming"

Expressing an unorthodox opinion does not necessitate hostility.

[Nalano]

I have a good one! I really liked empire total war. Yes it had lots of bugs, and the AI wasn't great, but I thought the fact that you could control nations across three different different continents AND fight detailed real time battles at any point on those continents AND it looked gorgeous down to the smallest detail was incredible. As a exercise in pure strategy it wasn't good, but as a spectacle I loved it, and as far as I know no other game has attempted what it did to the same extent.

American Indians marching in tight 19th century rows was odd and stupid.
Asiatic Indians being able to invade England with elephants was made of win and awesome.

[Rii]

I think the HL thing nowadays has a little element of Seinfeld Is Unfunny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny), which may confuse the issue.

So, umm, apparently this subject has been done to death since the last time I was in here, but whatever.

Seinfeld is probably not a good example for me because, well, I don't think it's funny. Actually, I've yet to encounter an American comedy other than The Simpsons that I do find funny. It's odd as Americans are clearly capable of being funny: I laugh all the time at the witticisms in Buffy or The West Wing, but shows that're actually pitched as comedies not so much. Odd.

In any case the issue of Half-Life and context is an interesting one. I can appreciate its achievements intellectually, and in some respects - the entire pre-chaos sequence, but especially the introductory tram ride - the game is still remarkable. And yet as a game (considered in its entirety) I don't feel it and never did. I missed it on release, but not by that much: it was late 1999 that I played the game, after System Shock 2 and alongside Opposing Force which, incidentally, is actually the highlight of the franchise for me. I was very disappointed to learn that there wasn't going to be an equivalent for HL2.

Another factor contributing to my relative apathy towards the game is that its accolades tend to come at the expense of Goldeneye 007, another innovative FPS which contributed significantly to the genre but which is all but ignored by PC gamers.

So, umm, practical implications? Well, HL3 and/or Episode 3 is about the least interesting project Valve could announce so far as I'm concerned. I really enjoyed Nova Prospekt from HL2 (and as I type that I can't believe I still remember the name) and if they want to explore that side of things further, awesome, but on the whole I'd rather see something else. I would've said anything else until I saw DotA 2. > >

[Mohorovicic]

No. For killing the FPS genre.

Because if HL was never released all FPSes would be Ultima Underworld? You're completely delusional.

[gundrea]

Planescape Torment had good gameplay
Raising your stats every level was a good feeling of growing power. Doing quests to change your class was fun and immersive. The spell effects and movies were fantastic. The combat was no worse than any other infinity engine game. Baldur's Gate II and Icewind Dale could have done with including more of Torment's engine ideas.

I don't know what other views I have that are unconventional. Game testing is fun?

[thegooseking]

@Lampchops: Well I wouldn't want it to apply to every game (just as jazz aficionados wouldn't want it applied to every album, rock and classical and folk and all).

But imagine playing something like Deus Ex and knowing you'd only get to play it once. Imagine how much value and involvement would arise. Sure you'd miss out on a lot, but that's the whole point.

Imagine how much the consequences of your decisions'd weigh on you, knowing you can't just load it up and see the alternate ending in half an hour's time. And yeah you're free to listen to a friend's account or watch a video of what you didn't catch, but when you're playing, it's different. It's your game, your experience, your shot.

I actually wrote a post (http://littlewolfgames.blogspot.com/2011/07/consequence-free.html) arguing against just that assumption a month ago.

[Nalano]

So, umm, apparently this subject has been done to death since the last time I was in here, but whatever.

Seinfeld is probably not a good example for me because, well, I don't think it's funny. Actually, I've yet to encounter an American comedy other than The Simpsons that I do find funny. It's odd as Americans are clearly capable of being funny: I laugh all the time at the witticisms in Buffy or The West Wing, but shows that're actually pitched as comedies not so much. Odd.

It's a trope. It means that the original's been copied so many times that, lately, people look at the original with jaundiced eyes.

If you don't like what Americans find funny, that's fine. I don't like humor that relies on humiliating somebody. But Seinfeld did pretty much heavily influence sitcoms for a long, long time.

[Wizardry]

Because if HL was never released all FPSes would be Ultima Underworld? You're completely delusional.
No. They would be Doom-likes. Not quite the Ultima Underworld/System Shock/Deus Ex school but better than the Half-Life/Call of Duty school.

[Scallat]

I think it's unfair to blame Half Life and Call of Duty for their many inferior clones. Half Life is still a great game (yes it is) and a number of the CoD franchise games have been very good aswell (CoD 2 & 4 being very well done IMO).

[Land Squid]

No. They would be Doom-likes. Not quite the Ultima Underworld/System Shock/Deus Ex school but better than the Half-Life/Call of Duty school.

Really? I see them as different schools. One's very singleplayer focused, and one is very multiplayer focused. In half life you get tons of health, tons of guns and fight through linear, sci-fi, atmospheric, varied locations. Call of duty (in multiplayer) isn't linear, is based in a miltitary setting, and strives to create a war move feel, with not a lot of health, not a lot of guns and a constant threat of being killed quickly.

EDIT

Actually, forget the linear comment, that was stupid

[AndrewC]

Wizardry isn't an unpleasant and borderline psychotic schtick poster.

[Lukasz]

No. They would be Doom-likes. Not quite the Ultima Underworld/System Shock/Deus Ex school but better than the Half-Life/Call of Duty school.

Even if Half Life somehow contributed to the development of linear FPS it is impossible for a single game to change the genre so profoundly that if it was not released cod4 would be more doomlike game not what it is today.

There are lots of factors which contributed to what is currently happening and Half Life is just very small part of it.

Your blame is not only unjustified but illogical.

[Wizardry]

Even if Half Life somehow contributed to the development of linear FPS it is impossible for a single game to change the genre so profoundly that if it was not released cod4 would be more doomlike game not what it is today.

There are lots of factors which contributed to what is currently happening and Half Life is just very small part of it.

Your blame is not only unjustified but illogical.
So people in this thread bitch at me while making a point that Ultima Underworld shouldn't be considered innovative because Half-Life was actually influential, and then someone else chimes in saying that Half-Life couldn't have had that much of an influence on the FPS genre because it's only a single game? Why don't you two groups fight amongst yourselves rather than drag me into it?

[Keep]

I actually wrote a post (http://littlewolfgames.blogspot.com/2011/07/consequence-free.html) arguing against just that assumption a month ago.

I'd post on your blog but it can't let me do so anon/pseudonymously, so I'll reply here.

That's actually a great angle, I hadn't looked at it like that before. Videogames enable a new kind of story that doesn't insist on linearity.

It's not quite answering the point I was trying to make, but it's really good. In fact, you could point out that the idea of 'canon' doesn't apply to videogames as it does novels or tv shows or movies. In those, one particular set of circumstances are what really happened, and alternative accounts are not on the same level, they're illegitimate. But in videogames, you can allow for multiple contradictory accounts, and have them all be canon. And that's pretty cool.

[gundrea]

But in videogames, you can allow for multiple contradictory accounts, and have them all be canon. And that's pretty cool.

Oh god no not the Daggerfall ending.

[Keep]

Oh god no not the Daggerfall ending.

Well no, because that's bullshit. That's trying to tell multiple stories but from within one bigger storyline, and my point was that games can express story in a way that accommodates multiple storylines without a need for a higher One True Storyline above them all.

[EBass]

The Whole Animus reliving past memories in Assasin's Creed is a good gameplay/plot device. - Firstly because from a metagaming perspective it actually makes way more sense than your traditional "You died, try again.". Desmond isn't reliving the memories exactly as they happened, and the more you stray from what actually happened the more you desyncronise from them until you lose connection and have to resyncronise. Secondly, I actually really enjoy the modern and olden plots and they way they converge and intertwine.

Old school adventure games are best off staying dead. - Did we really love the old Lucasarts adventures because they were adventures? No, we loved them for the writing and the humour, its just that in the old days 2d adventures were the best medium in which to display them. Does anyone honestly want to go back to the days of "using" every item in the world on every other item to stumble across some bizarre solution?

Vietcong was one of the best shooters in recent history

The Cradle isn't scary, well written and designed yes, but not particularly scary.

Far Cry is ALL brilliant, yes even the Trigens.

[Wizardry]

Old school adventure games are best off staying dead. - Did we really love the old Lucasarts adventures because they were adventures? No, we loved them for the writing and the humour, its just that in the old days 2d adventures were the best medium in which to display them. Does anyone honestly want to go back to the days of "using" every item in the world on every other item to stumble across some bizarre solution?
I don't think I ever had to use every item with every other item in a LucasArts adventure game.

[Fumarole]

Wizardry isn't an unpleasant and borderline psychotic schtick poster.Well played.

[IDtenT]

I hate enemies that are wholly different from humans in FPS games.
Three bullets from a glock should kill. In that case, I hate any FPS that's not somewhat of a military shooter. My favourite shooters by far have been Operation Flashpoint and secondly MoH:AA, Max Payne ST: Elite Force, etc. The first because I felt it had excellent progression, yet was insanely aggressive at the same time and ultimately would be the only shooter that would feature in my top 10 game experiences. The latter group for being fast paced bang bang actions - much like the reason why I like Freelancer or Fable. Oh and of course, it must be single player.

FPSs are by nature terrible and immature games and therefore should never get a rating above four out of five stars.
Very very few games would hold up against some of the most mediocre of films, FPS games the least of them. It is for this reason that I have no love for Valve, id or any variety of FPS studios.

Deus Ex was a fundamentally flawed game.
I just couldn't get beyond the terrible voice acting in Hong Kong. Then there are people that praise the game for being partly set there. Lolwut? It was terrible. The endings are also very highly overrated.

Management and Grand Strategy games are the best games.
This year I have mostly played Open TTD (Transport Tycoon Deluxe is easily one of my favourite games ever), Patrician IV, Football Manager, EUIII and Victoria II. RPGs would mostly enter in after these heavyweights. This is where, imho, the PC really shines compared to a console.

I hate the Diablos, but I loved Titan Quest and Dungeon Siege II.
Titan Quest with its WYSIWYG loot system alone scores it a special place in my games catalogue. Dungeon Siege II was for me a perfectly blend of H&S top down action and a quest driven gameplay. The game just worked, without the quests all being right in front of you as with the others.

I hate having too many side-quests.
I'm a completionist. If I can't enjoy the game, at least half the time, while doing everything possibly possible then the game isn't worth finishing.

[Nalano]

I hate enemies that are wholly different from humans in FPS games.

They really only do that because killing the Big Bad in one shot's kinda anti-climactic.

[fiddlesticks]

Deus Ex was a fundamentally flawed game.
I just couldn't get beyond the terrible voice acting in Hong Kong. Then there are people that praise the game for being partly set there. Lolwut? It was terrible. The endings are also very highly overrated.
I don't think this opinion is all that uncommon. Even a large part of its fanbase would probably agree that Deus Ex had many serious flaws. If anything, it's an often cited example of a work where the sum is greater than its individual parts.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about, the voice acting in Deus Ex is brilliant. Brilliant, I say!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP6Nuf2lq0w

[Fumarole]

As awesome as the voice acting is in Deus Ex, it is even awesomesaucier in the Men of War series.

[Keep]

FPSs are by nature terrible and immature games and therefore should never get a rating above four out of five stars.
Very very few games would hold up against some of the most mediocre of films, FPS games the least of them. It is for this reason that I have no love for Valve, id or any variety of FPS studios.

...Actually, I'd get behind that. Well pointed out.

[Sharkticon]

I agree with Wizardry, partially.

I love Half-Life 1, but I do wish that FPSs developed more along the Doom/Quake style instead of the nonsense we have nowadays. Linear shooters can be fun, and they can be good, but it's a big shame that Doom isn't the main inspiration for modern FPSs.

Half-Life is, perhaps, partially to blame. But I would place the bulk of the blame on console controllers which more or less removed fast-twitch gameplay, enemies from all around/above/below, exploration, more than two/four guns.

[Nalano]

Doom-alikes weren't linear shooters?

Go here, get red key. Open red door to get blue key. Open blue door to get yellow key. Open yellow door to get to next level.

Rinse, repeat.

[Sharkticon]

FPSs are by nature terrible and immature games and therefore should never get a rating above four out of five stars.
Very very few games would hold up against some of the most mediocre of films, FPS games the least of them. It is for this reason that I have no love for Valve, id or any variety of FPS studios.


Why on earth do games have to hold up to films?

I could say "very very few films would hold up against some of the most mediocre of basketball matches".

..."very very few basketball matches would hold up against some of the most mediocre of knitting sprees".


..."very very few knitting sprees would hold up against some of the most mediocre of metal albums".

etc.

[Sharkticon]

Doom-alikes weren't linear shooters?

Go here, get red key. Open red door to get blue key. Open blue door to get yellow key. Open yellow door to get to next level.

Rinse, repeat.

Have you played and finished Doom?

It's not fair to blame Half-Life, really. It did contribute in some way to the current state of FPSs, but Half-Life isn't anywhere as linear as, say, Modern Warfare. In COD and most if not all modern shooters you go from point A to point B in more or less an unbroken line with a clear direction.

In Doom you explore the levels. There is not always a clear 'linear' direction. The levels don't 'lead' anywhere like the levels/funnels of modern shooters do.

Also, using your reasoning, any game is linear. Deus Ex!!! Go New York, meet this person, Go to Hong Kong, meet that person, rinse, repeat.

Morrowind!!! Go to Seyda Neen, meet this person, go to Balmora, meet that person, go to Vivec, do this, rinse, repeat!

[Nalano]

Have you played and finished Doom?

Yes. Multiple times. And I spent my formative years playing loads of Doom-alikes. There's a very simple formula to it.

[laneford]

Half-Life is, perhaps, partially to blame. But I would place the bulk of the blame on console controllers which more or less removed fast-twitch gameplay, enemies from all around/above/below, exploration, more than two/four guns.

Goldeneye.

[Keep]

Why on earth do games have to hold up to films?

Because they're similar in a lot of ways. Games shouldn't try to emulate films, but they can be fruitfully compared to them.

I don't think knitting sprees can be fruitfully compared to metal albums.