What cau$ed the decline?

[DraQ]

Good job for posting a skippable intro (which is 1:16 minutes in length, compared to the 14 minutes unskippable introduction of Half-Life) and proving I'm right.

Make a save after it and use it instead of starting new game if it bothers you. Feel free to quit the moment you reach outro too.

Extreme decline. I like videogames being videogamey.

Well, I don't. Problem?

"Realistic" AI is decline, this shit never works as intended. The enemies never really act like humans and can suddenly adopt a "dummy" or a "warrior with sixth sense" instance.

They act better than practically everything prior. HL and Unreal surpassed preexisting state of the art FPS AI so much that it wasn't even funny.

Also, you miss the part with diverse AI. Different kinds of aliens, for example, behaved in very different manner.

I rather have enemies with real patterns.

Go play a shmup (or HL2 ).

Goldeneye did hit mechanics first. Even MDK (headshots) did it first.

First, I don't care about console games.

Second, yeah, MDK had good locational damage model. The thing is that HL combined multiple hitboxes per character with material system allowing for stuff like partial armor and such. This allowed for stuff like DT system where enemy with visible armor actually had the armoured parts protected and weaker rounds simply bounced off them. It rewarded precise shooting, made difference between weapons apart from DPS, allowed for heavily armoured menaces like Gargantua without them being simply massive HP walls. It also allowed fun mechanical stuff like the engineers in the expansion exploding if shot in the small gas tanks (for blowtorch) they carried on their backs.
Then, you had diverse and interesting weapon selection including stuff like prototype energy weapon shooting through walls when charged up and causing massive spalling damage, alien organic weapons, proper RPG instead of ye olde FPS RL, a whole bunch of different firearms, recoil that had significant impact on the gameplay, enemy fire jolting you and preventing accurate return fire even if you could take the damage and so on.

This really elevated the gameplay to a new level.

And this interactivity was used to create unimaginative box puzzles.

You didn't have many of those in HL.

Half-Life's story sucks because good characters are completely absent. Really, wtf is Half-Life's "story"? Gordon Freeman is a physics scientist who inexplicably can kill hundreds of aliens. Oh, have some one-dimensional scientists and security guards too.

We are talking storytelling technique here. HL's storytelling is uniquely superior as far as videogames are concerned because it allows seamless integration of what would otherwise be cutscenes, without usual confusion and taking the player out of character and remains consistent in terms of game reacts to input, unlike, for example, the dreaded QTEs.

The way you confuse storytelling techniques with story indicates that you are retarded.

Please, go be retarded somewhere else.

 

[Mustawd]

We are talking storytelling technique here. HL's storytelling is uniquely superior as far as videogames are concerned because it allows seamless integration of what would otherwise be cutscenes, without usual confusion and taking the player out of character and remains consistent in terms of game reacts to input, unlike, for example, the dreaded QTEs.

I think that's what i meant when I mentioned "interactive movie" Obviously, I'm not talking about interactive FMVs here. But the presentation in HL was one of the first times where the immersion was almost seamless.

But I'd argue that this led to an expectation that games become more movie-like; where the end goal is to create an interactive cinematic experience in which the player is participating in this experience. In which case things like QTEs, full voice over, real time emphasized over turn based, first person/over the shoulder versus isometric, action versus strategy/tactics, etc.

Which, if you think about it, was accelerated with the advent of consoles..an already actioney/arcadey/simplified type of gameplay in many genres.

 

[Siobhan]

Let me put on my tinfoil hat for a second:

All the symptoms of the decline are direct consequences of the socialization of the modern AAA gamer, aged 10 to 25. This is a generation that has been taught over many years that being a good member of society means being docile and obeying orders. "Learning" amounts to regurgitating what was covered by the instructor rather than applying those tools to solve new problems on your own. Do as you're told, be diligent, and everything will be fine. And don't you dare trying to escape this walled garden, it's for your own good, we're just trying to make you comfortable.

A generation raised in such a climate will naturally gravitate towards games with clearly structured experiences (quest compass, achievements, linear level design), low skill ceiling (shallow systems, no hard limits on resources, various technical aids such as assisted aim), and guaranteed reward for effort (every game is beatable given enough time, an abundance of easy collectibles, no randomness or unfairness). Such a generation will also prefer moderated app stores to a free platform, and structure its digital life around sanitized environments like Facebook. And such a generation will lap up whatever it is being served by the mainstream because looking around for alternatives is something they've always been discouraged to do. It's all connected: boring shallow games, people blindly following a guard's orders in Dishonored, the push towards restricted platforms, anti-consumerist business practices, the endorsement of censorship to avoid offense, the exchange of civil liberties for the illusion of safety; they're all symptoms of the sanitized comfort culture we've been erecting since the early 90s, exacerbated by a threatened middle class in the wake of 9-11 and the 2008 economic crisis.

We started growing sheeple, we got sheeple, and now that the sheeple are the primary demographic for almost everything digital, everything digital has to become sheeple-proof. If you think that's bad, just wait till they become the main demographic for more important things. The whole western hemisphere is headed for a Neo-Biedermeier, and gaming is but a vanguard of the things to come.

If you'd excuse me now, I've got a bunker to build and no Neanderthal around to help me out.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Let me put on my tinfoil hat for a second:

All the symptoms of the decline are direct consequences of the socialization of the modern AAA gamer, aged 10 to 25. This is a generation that has been taught over many years that being a good member of society means being docile and obeying orders. "Learning" amounts to regurgitating what was covered by the instructor rather than applying those tools to solve new problems on your own. Do as you're told, be diligent, and everything will be fine. And don't you dare trying to escape this walled garden, it's for your own good, we're just trying to make you comfortable.
(....)

Your argument: We started growing sheeple and now they're the largest demographic, so game makers have to heed them.

I think sheeple always existed. Sheeple constitute the largest demographic. And sheeple aren't stupid, either. YOu make htem out to be stupid, but they're not. Many are just hard working and busy, often with family. They need pickup & play games out of necessity. Others are just lightweight gamers by nature. They want lightweight games which they can get into quickly and not feel too pressured. This doesn't mean they're stupid. They just don't want any stress or frustration from a game.

My opinion is you're mistaking people who want "easy to play, hard to master" games to people who're stupid. Google "easy to play, hard to master" and you'll get a large list of games which're worthy games to play. Super Mario Brothers comes to my mind, but I think Tetris is the best example. Someone doesn't HAVE to be dumb to like them or prefer them.

YOu explained these're some of the indicators of sheeple gameplay:
* structured expeirences (quest compass, achievements, linear level design)
* low skill ceiling (shallow systems, no hard limits on resources, technical aids like assisted aim)
* guaranteed reward for effort (reduced randomness, everything beatable with enough time, abundance of collectibles)

All those things just make a game easier to get into and play, as well as returning to them after a long vacation.

And I have to admit, the only "decline" in mainstream games which mattered TO ME (or was otherwise noted) were things which're popularly considered tedious: tight gameplay, lack of compass or linear levels, no assisted aim, limited resources and some ranomdness. Other things like simulation have also mattered to me, but again, most gamers think simulation doesn't belong in a game. Anyway, the sum total of what -I- consider decline is very flimsy and subjective. My decline is the common person's incline.

Regardless, it never mattered that mainstream games "declined," since I was always able to find a game to play. Back then, games didn't generally come out and say "hey I'm niche!" You had to read reviews or try the game yourself. That's how I found BC 3000AD, for example. I was just roaming around in EB and there it was. I brought it home and had fun playing something which everybody was trashing on the review sites. That's when I first discovered you can't always trust review sites. Although I often did, except I looked for keywords like "free roam" or "simulation" or "open world" or "unforgiving". I got by. There were tons of games I missed. Now, with gog.com and indie games, I'd need several lifetimes to play them all. I feel spoiled.

I discovered over the past few years survival games feel very much like the old games I still enjoy. I sometimes wonder if the survival genre is just slapping something old (c&c or tight gameplay?) onto something new to avert being attacked. I think it's the same reason some games were developed as "action-adventure" rather than RPG or were classed as "action-RPG" instead of "RPG". The whole intent was to avert being attacked by the RPG puritans, many of which reside here at the codex.

 

[Sranchammer]

Its all our fault

 

[octavius]

There's also something to be said, I think, for the influence of a network effect. The late 90s/early 2000s golden era was clearly the result of many designers playing each other's game and attempting to both learn from and one-up each other, but we tend to forget that it came after a period of its own decline. I remember that one year - I think it was 1994 - Computer Gaming World simply refused to give out a Role Playing Game of the Year award, concluding that there just weren't any suitable candidates. I don't know if the reasons for that decline have anything to do with the recent decline, but I do know that Baldur's Gate kicked off a renaissance that, for RPG fans, was a looooooong time in coming (similar, let's hope, to the sudden arrival of Kickstarter on the scene).

IMO the decline of CRPGs after 1993 and before the renaissance brought by Fallout and Baldur's gate in 97/98, was due in large part to the incredible success of Doom. I think Doom had a much bigger impact of the whole video game industry than Diablo did. CRPGs as a genre almost died after Doom was released, while renaissance games like Baldur's Gate, other IE games and Might&Magic 6+7, and the "new wave" of CRPGs like Fallout 1+2 and Arcanum, could live happily alongside Diablo. Just like Dungeon Master in 1987 created a new sub-genre, Diablo created a new sub-genre in 96/97, but we still had many "real" (read: turn based) CRPGs of high quality.

 

[octavius]

Another factor no one seems to have noticed or addressed: Before Microsoft announced that they were entering the console market (1998 or thereabouts) the consoles and PCs were not really fighting one another, market-wise. PCs had simulators, grand strategy games and large, but slow-paced role playing games, while the consoles were focused on platformers, beat'em-ups, shoot'em-ups and 'hot seat' multiplayer games. Two seperate markets, one can claim. There were overlaps, sure. Popular console titles got converted to the PCs, but very few PC titles got converted to the consoles, it was mostly a one-way street.

I've mentioned this a few times before, including briefly in this thread.
There really were two separate markets before the X-Box. Consoles and simple games for the young kids, and computers for the adults and older kids. I was among the older kids/young adults when the NES and SNES was popular, but in only in retrospect did I learn just how popular they were. None of my friends or others of similar age had Japanese consoles; it was like they didn't even exist. But when I read about retro gaming on Norwegian forums now it's like it was the other way around; everybody had Japanese consoles and computer games hardly existed, which makes me a bit sad.

 

[Lilura]

The Amiga competed against the SNES, Genesis, PC-Engine and Neo Geo long before 1998 (primarily the former two). And by competed, I mean it got its ass kicked.

 

[octavius]

The Amiga was kind of a hybrid between a console and a computer. To me it was more like a computer and I mostly played typical computer games, only they usually had much better audiovisuals than an Apple II or DOS game would have had.
Turrican and all the other more consoly games didn't interest me that much.
But I saw the writing on the wall quite early; the Amiga was clearly not the future of computer gaming. I guess I never was real Amiga fanboy; looking back very few of the games I liked and player were actually developed for the Amiga.

 

[octavius]

Even more astounding is that Commodore squandered it all away.

 

[TheGreatOne]

What the hell Commodore was doing in the early 90s to have fucked up so bad? There was the launch of CD32 and the CDTV, but those alone can't have bankrupted them. Apple survived but they didn't. It would've been cool to see the next generation of Amiga, developed with similiar sensibilities as the previous ones but for the mid/late 90s time period.

Extreme decline. I like videogames being videogamey.

Well, I don't. Problem?

It's not a problem for you if that's your thing since that's the direction the gaming industry at large has headed for the past 15 years, but it is problem to gamers to see their industry overtaken by people who don't really care about video games.

First, I don't care about console games.

"Shenmue/GTA 3 invented sandbox games"
But Ultima....
"I don't care about PC games"

 

[Grim Monk]

Which is why I think Draq's post is wrong. He wrote something lke "Content creation is getting cheaper because the hardware and software is advancing so nicely. Soon you'll see indie games with AAA quality." The problem is just as indie games are producing AAA quality, theactual AAA games will be years ahead of them.

Two things:

• I did specify "turn of century classics" - stuff like Unreal, Deus Ex, Homeworld, Wizardry 8, Morrowind. Today you could feasibly make that sort of game on fraction of original budged thanks to far more powerful tools. I don't care if AAAAAA+ front is advancing faster than the tools and cost reduction enabled by them. The important part is that those tools do advance and keep advancing. And would you honestly scoff at game on par with those classics? They were good enough back then, why not now? We have faux 8 and 16 bit indies coexisting with high budget blockbusters now, why not more advanced ones? AAAAAAA+ market won't be reclaiming the niches it vacated, you know, and you won't need AAAAAA+ level sales to profit from them.

Video Related:

 

[Trotsky]

Capitalism caused the decline. Or to be more accurate the fundamental contradiction that is inherent in all capitalist systems, aka suffocating human creativity in favor of global market conformity while reducing its ability to evolve the relationship between base and superstructure. This in turn causes "the forces of production to come into conflict with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto" (marx), causing a social revolution (sic) or, in the case of computer gaming, the evolution of kickstarter projects that can be seen as an alternate form of self-organized anarcho-collectives, in a very limited sense.

Games developed in capitalist economies:
Every single old CRPG, strategy game, space sim, Looking Glass titles etc.

Games developed in socialist economies:
Tetris

So far capitalism has the better track record

Marxist analysis will always be superior to bourgeois historical discussion.

Feelz not reelz

Capitalism also creates mass immigration, radical feminism, negro worship, and deviant normalization. The whole SJW movement is bourgeois decadence and rootless cosmopolitanism.

Notice how none of this degeneracy comes from Russia, China, eastern Europe, and elsewhere? That's no coincidence because communism preserves 'human technologies" like sanity.

 

[AwesomeButton]

And here I thought I was safe from communist bullshit on this forum at least...

Blaming SJW movement on capitalism is the biggest load of shit I've heard in a while.

It is exactly the left that seeks to equalize people and makes false promises that everyone will be well-off, preferrably without needing to work. Economic freedom (capitalism) leads to the opposite - survival of the fittest, within what's allowed by the laws.

Really, let's stick to the topic please. I get enough political discussions in other places to enjoy them on the codex too...

 

[Trotsky]

You can't have liberalism without capitalism. Liberalism is what you're complaining about because the most economically powerful nation on Earth is Red China.

I wrote a lengthy and provocative blog post discussing nearly every aspect of communism. Not gonna derail the thread further so private message me henceforth.

https://eradica.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/old-and-new-gods/

 

[Telengard]

What the hell Commodore was doing in the early 90s to have fucked up so bad? There was the launch of CD32 and the CDTV, but those alone can't have bankrupted them. Apple survived but they didn't. It would've been cool to see the next generation of Amiga, developed with similiar sensibilities as the previous ones but for the mid/late 90s time period.

The mismanagement of Commodore by its top brass is legendary. The decision to sell the first Amiga as a business computer only is infamous. But my favorite read is this guy.

Dave Haynie, Engineer, Musician, Photo/Videographer
9 upvotes by Robin Chytil, C. Wade Hodges, Chris Davis, (more)

It was basically a suicide.

The Amiga was way ahead of its time. Not just in graphics. In the world of personal computers, the Amiga had packed more firsts, or nearly firsts, into one machine than any time in the past or future.

The Amiga hardware used dozens of dedicated DMA channels to speed up all kinds of low-level operations, things other computers (particularly the Macintosh) did by software polling. This was essential to support the true multitasking operating system, long before MacOS supported it... Microsoft were still on MS-DOS and Windows 1.0 hadn't quite shipped yet. Amiga was the first personal computer with graphics acceleration hardware. It could be genlocked to a video stream, allowing it to overlay television graphics. First personal computer to come with stereo, multi-voice audio. The GUI was years ahead of anyone else's. And so on.

The big problem at Commodore was management's commitment to development. The development team worked smart and lean -- there were only two system engineers (George Robbins, Bob Welland) on the Amiga 500, for example, except for a brief month or so when I was helping out, before taking over the Amiga 2000. All by myself... I was 24 years old. We had about 20 people, give or take, working on the operating system.

The problem was the custom chips. They kind of locked into the system what could change and what couldn't. They were also the secret to why an Amiga 500, 1000, or 2000 had the graphics speed of a Mac II. But not a full 24-bit color display. It couldn't go beyond NTSC/PAL video resolutions. It needed to evolve, and the chip group was very underfunded for that kind of work.

One example: a project called the Advanced Amiga Architecture (AAA) began in 1988. It wasn't until 1993 that the first silicon from that project was available -- I built the development system. The chips weren't done, they were only partially functional. That system had a 32-bit graphics processor, 24-bit color, 64-bit memory -- started out way ahead. But the management didn't take it seriously enough.

And by 1991, the successful management team within Engineering, the team that brought out the Amiga 500, Amiga 2000/2500, and Amiga 3000, was replaced by a bunch of idiots. That's where the Amiga 600 came from. The A600 had originally been an in-house project called the A300, designed to deliver an even lower cost alternative to the A500, was jacked up in useless ways to cost more than the A500 but deliver less. They tried kind of the same thing at the higher end, but Commodore's sales companies would have nothing to do with those systems. That team also intentionally delayed the AA project (AGA when the marketing people got hold), the first major improvement in the Amiga custom chips since the beginning (24-bit color, for example).

In short, over years of essentially neglecting to supply what Engineering needed to maintain the Amiga's 1985 lead, that lead was lost. Management was also sucking Commodore dry like some kind of twisted vampire. The two big bosses of 1991, Irving Gould and Mehdi Ali, were each paid in excess of US$3 million in salary and bonus, even as they were sabotaging the future of Amiga. Keep in mind that neither IBM nor Apple were paying their top people even US$1 million. Applying an extra US$5-6 million to chip development back then, that alone could have been the difference.

Now, this wasn't the only issue in the end. But it was the fundamental one. Professionals were switching to Macs or PCs because they couldn't get the performance they needed out of Amigas. Gamers were switching to consoles or, eventually, PCs -- though most of the PC gaming revolution took place a few years later, when companies like nVidia and ATi started delivering 3D graphics. At the end, in 1993-1994, Commodore also had a 3D graphics project in the early stages, dubbed Hombre (designed by Dr. Ed Hepler). nVidia was only just founded in 1993... they didn't release their first attempt at a 3D processor, the RIVA128, until 1997. Hombre had its own on-chip RISC processor, based on HP's PA-RISC instruction set, with custom 3D instructions added.

 

[DraQ]

Extreme decline. I like videogames being videogamey.

Well, I don't. Problem?

It's not a problem for you if that's your thing since that's the direction the gaming industry at large has headed for the past 15 years

Superficially, perhaps but not in any way that actually matters.
Some genres (like cRPGs) have actually become increasingly game-y by gradually shedding all intricacies adorning their simplistic bare-bones (unsurprisingly since they were optimized to run on a paper, pencil, a bunch of dice and some headmath) mechanical cores.

but it is problem to gamers to see their industry overtaken by people who don't really care about video games.

The problem is that industry is taken over by wannabe movie directors. It's not about games abandoning videogame logic. It's about games abandoning actual interactivity and what real world logic they have already featured (by removing failure, for instance).

First, I don't care about console games.

"Shenmue/GTA 3 invented sandbox games"
But Ultima....
"I don't care about PC games"

1. MDK predated Goldeneye, original Team Fortress for Quake predated MDK, if 3D games that aren't FPSes count, I learned to selectively destroy enemy ship drives with beam lasers (indicating locational damage model) in FE2 which was a 1993 game
   
2. We are not arguing who did headshots first, but the totality of shooting mechanics - HL combined different damage multipliers for different hit locations, fairly accurate hitboxes, material system working on per-hitbox basis, recoil, diverse and interesting weapon selection, reloads, alt fire and being physically affected by weapon impacts in a way that messed with your return fire. That gave unprecedented depth to the simple low-brow act of shooting shit with a bunch of boomsticks which is the heart of an FPS experience. Whether or not some game did headshots first is not important if this game couldn't replicate the way you could shoot a guy in the head in HL and heave it bounce off his helmet, while the second shot aimed at unprotected area hit normally.

I think that's what i meant when I mentioned "interactive movie" Obviously, I'm not talking about interactive FMVs here. But the presentation in HL was one of the first times where the immersion was almost seamless.

But I'd argue that this led to an expectation that games become more movie-like; where the end goal is to create an interactive cinematic experience in which the player is participating in this experience.

The thing is HL wasn't movie-like. It was the opposite of movie-like. Sure there were some similarities, but they can be chalked up to movies generally trying to mimic reality in some ways and individual scripted pieces used to cover up the same-y and repetitive nature of gameplay in pretty much every game (which was surprisingly successful and unintrusive as vast majority of those set pieces didn't interrupt the flow of gameplay).
OTOH HL opted to not use cutscenes, camera work or cinematic effects at any point in the game, instead deciding to glue player inside their avatar and in control using uniform and consistent set of controls and mechanics from the very start to the very end, making no concessions for the sake of making things more awesome or cinematic.

HL didn't try to force the game into cinematic mold. At best it forced some movie-like elements into game mold - uncompromisingly and, at times, brutally.
HL was built on the assumption that it's first and foremost a videogame possessing well defined mechanics and user interface, with scripted scenes serving as window dressing for that and have to work in that context.
Modern cinematic games are built on the assumption that they are first and foremost cinematic experience, with gameplay being an afterthought - this is especially glaring with QTEs that are literally cutscenes demanding arbitrary input at arbitrary moments which masquerades as gameplay.

Also, HL can't be blamed for simplifying gameplay as it offered gameplay that was much more complex and less arcade-y than that of about any previous (main branch - we aren't talking about System Shock here) FPS games.

 

[Mustawd]

The thing is HL wasn't movie-like. It was the opposite of movie-like. Sure there were some similarities, but they can be chalked up to movies generally trying to mimic reality in some ways and individual scripted pieces used to cover up the same-y and repetitive nature of gameplay in pretty much every game (which was surprisingly successful and unintrusive as vast majority of those set pieces didn't interrupt the flow of gameplay).
OTOH HL opted to not use cutscenes, camera work or cinematic effects at any point in the game, instead deciding to glue player inside their avatar and in control using uniform and consistent set of controls and mechanics from the very start to the very end, making no concessions for the sake of making things more awesome or cinematic.

HL didn't try to force the game into cinematic mold. At best it forced some movie-like elements into game mold - uncompromisingly and, at times, brutally.
HL was built on the assumption that it's first and foremost a videogame possessing well defined mechanics and user interface, with scripted scenes serving as window dressing for that and have to work in that context.
Modern cinematic games are built on the assumption that they are first and foremost cinematic experience, with gameplay being an afterthought - this is especially glaring with QTEs that are literally cutscenes demanding arbitrary input at arbitrary moments which masquerades as gameplay.

Also, HL can't be blamed for simplifying gameplay as it offered gameplay that was much more complex and less arcade-y than that of about any previous (main branch - we aren't talking about System Shock here) FPS games.

Fair enough. Those were good points. I'm convinced you're right.

 

[TheGreatOne]

Some genres (like cRPGs) have actually become increasingly game-y by gradually shedding all intricacies adorning their simplistic bare-bones (unsurprisingly since they were optimized to run on a paper, pencil, a bunch of dice and some headmath) mechanical cores.

When ever you're on a video game forum and feel the need to use the word "gamey" or "video gamey" to describe undeseriable game design trends, you should stop to think for a second and slap yourself. Unless you're some one who only plays Dwarf Fortress and Flight Simulators.
Quake and UT are more game-y than Call of Duty. That's a good thing in my book. Yes simulationist elements can add meaningful depth to a game (CRPG inventory management, Thief/SS2/Resident Evil level design etc) but following that route can just as easily lead to a slippery slope of decline. "Isometric RPGs in 2015 are unacceptable, they ruin my immersion!", cried the biofags. "Turn based combat breaks the metaphysics of the narrative!", cried the insane asylum escapee. A FPS with rocket jumping, double jumping, wall running etc will have more depth and a higher skill cap than FPS with "realistic" or realistic movement speed and recoil. Same goes for 2D fighters vs MMA games. Dungeon crawler (as well as Doom's) level design is unrealistic and outdated because why would an evil dark lord design his own castle to be a maze full of teleporters. And so on.

What you're describing is dumbing down, not switching from simulationist to abstract game design. Casuals don't want to perform "tedious" tasks in RPGs any more than putting the effort to learning unrealistic moves with few frame time windows. You can still design intricate and deep CRPGs with abstract systems. Sometimes "simulationist" elements (like encumbrance in goldbox games, or having to find the correct key in Thief) are actually fun additions to gameplay. It all depends on the context and big picture whether a feature is beneficent to a gameplay system or not.

The problem is that industry is taken over by wannabe movie directors. It's not about games abandoning videogame logic. It's about games abandoning actual interactivity and what real world logic they have already featured (by removing failure, for instance).

When you design purely abstract games, it wouldn't even occur to casuals that "hey, you could use this thing as a pretty neat storytelling medium". Once you start briding the gap with titles like Half Life, you start attracting Hamburger Helpers who consider gameplay secondary. Soon after developers will start removing puzzles from adventure games (so they wouldn't stop you from enjoying the story) and dumbing down FPS games and making RPGs from first person perspective (to increase immersion).

 

[Siobhan]

I can't read for shit

My whole point was that this isn't about intelligence, gamer cred or being hardcore, but rather socialization, learned behavior, and how those factors foster specific preferences for what's considered fun. That's not a moral judgment, it's a simple observation of how the gameplay of current AAA titles is a natural consequence of catering to the expecations of its core audience. Which is a sound business strategy (and something we obviously want for games where we are the core audience).

 

[DraQ]

The thing is HL wasn't movie-like. It was the opposite of movie-like. Sure there were some similarities, but they can be chalked up to movies generally trying to mimic reality in some ways and individual scripted pieces used to cover up the same-y and repetitive nature of gameplay in pretty much every game (which was surprisingly successful and unintrusive as vast majority of those set pieces didn't interrupt the flow of gameplay).
OTOH HL opted to not use cutscenes, camera work or cinematic effects at any point in the game, instead deciding to glue player inside their avatar and in control using uniform and consistent set of controls and mechanics from the very start to the very end, making no concessions for the sake of making things more awesome or cinematic.

HL didn't try to force the game into cinematic mold. At best it forced some movie-like elements into game mold - uncompromisingly and, at times, brutally.
HL was built on the assumption that it's first and foremost a videogame possessing well defined mechanics and user interface, with scripted scenes serving as window dressing for that and have to work in that context.
Modern cinematic games are built on the assumption that they are first and foremost cinematic experience, with gameplay being an afterthought - this is especially glaring with QTEs that are literally cutscenes demanding arbitrary input at arbitrary moments which masquerades as gameplay.

Also, HL can't be blamed for simplifying gameplay as it offered gameplay that was much more complex and less arcade-y than that of about any previous (main branch - we aren't talking about System Shock here) FPS games.

Fair enough. Those were good points. I'm convinced you're right.

There were still things HL could have handled better - like linearity or stupid platforming sections (no, not Xen, Residue Processing) - but overall it has earned its place among FPS classics.

 

[Mustawd]

Well I agree with you in that it is an FPS classic. But it had some things in it in which to me felt....very cinematic. I mean comparing that to say...Doom, Ris eof the Triad, or Heretic back in the day.

But you made a good case in describing why HL is not necessarily.."movie-like" in the sense of some of the other popamole stuff out there. For example, FFX is just a cutscene game with tons of filler combat. You're just playing long enough to see the next cutscene while you grind away. That was my experience anyway.

 

[BBMorti]

 

[Zep Zepo]

/\ This is why I use Gamefly.

Zep--

 

[Trotsky]

I have a more nuanced view on the whole "xbox ruined gaming" stuff. The original xbox was Microsoft's only good console. All their best exclusives and features come from that era as well. Xbox also pushed innovation forward in consoles particularly toward online play. I don't believe Microsoft realized their full potential with the xbox but since then its been nothing but downhill from junk hardware, menu advertisements, stupid gimmicks, and no exclusives.

It does seem that skeptics were correct all along that the original xbox was a M$ trojan horse into the gaming industry. They've done almost nothing right ever since and are now a cancer holding back both console and PC gaming.