Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
GooberMan

Relevant comparison is relevant

Recommended Posts

Perfect summary how games nowadays compared to how they were in the 90s are actually diminishing in quality rather than improving. Also has anyone noticed that most games today have a trend that they directly copy from Hollywood films (like orchestral music, cutscenes after cutscenes, extremely linear map designs etc) which as if you feel like playing in a interactive movie than a actual game?

Share this post


Link to post

Cutscenes are fine if they are done well and don't overtake the gameplay too much. Bioware has done fairly well in this regard with KOTOR/Mass Effect games. They're also really pretty linear games (frankly not much different in gameplay from, say, dungeon seige), but still give a good illusion of being played how you want to, and frankly that's good for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Really, the problem with most modern games is lack of replayability. Some might have slightly alternate routes or different choices you can make, but they're essentially the same game. I realize it's easier said than done, but what would truly revolutionize gaming now is making them worth playing over and over and over.

Doom's near infinite replayability was honestly kind of a fluke, and fairly an unintended result from it being so easy to mod. Quake and Half-Life also had their lives significantly lengthened through fairly easy modability; or at least in Valve's case their friendliness to the mod community and practically giving everything the community needs but the actual source code out for free in order to customize the games.

That, of course, is just one way to make a game more replayable, but on the other hand is kind of reliant on the consumer to generate their own fun. I think developers are starting to catch on that linear, non-dynamic games have limited appeal and I'm interested to see how they get around that in the future. There are a few that have kind of the right idea, mostly in the sandbox and to a lesser extent MMO genres, but I think the development world still might have a few tricks up their sleeve soon enough. We'll see.

Share this post


Link to post

I could go on a rant about how badly commercialized the video game industry is how it's quality is totally driven by how much money they make by selling it to you, but I don't think you guys wanna read it.

The only reason I can say that the map on the right is a good thing is that you never miss anything between the start and finish of a game. I'm sure there are many people who may have played Doom from start to finish once and never again. They may have missed secret levels, or complete alternate routes, or an entire portion of a level that they'll never see without replaying it. By making strictly linear game design, the developers know players will never get lost and they will get to experience the game to its fullest extent and none of their labor will go to waste.

I'd like to disagree that Doom's replayability came off as a fluke. Doom just feels too balanced and justified for all the monster's behavior and how different the weapons are to be all by accident. I'm not sure what evidence I can use to back it up except for all the doom-based official idsoftware releases made after Doom 1, I'm sure they intended for a lot of doom's features to be very versatile so that they could extend the game much further than Doom 1.

I once was linked to a lecture by game designer Will Wright, known for lead development for games like Sim City, and The Sims and various other games and really opened my eyes to the good and bad qualities of games, and in his powerpoint presentation he made this diagram with points being being the possible outcomes of a game, and lines being ways to reach those outcomes. He used 3 examples and Doom happened to be one of them (I was very happy to see that) I forget what the name of the first game was but the diagram looked a lot like this:

Share this post


Link to post
Jannak said:

Perfect summary how games nowadays compared to how they were in the 90s are actually diminishing in quality rather than improving. Also has anyone noticed that most games today have a trend that they directly copy from Hollywood films (like orchestral music, cutscenes after cutscenes, extremely linear map designs etc) which as if you feel like playing in a interactive movie than a actual game?


Some games in the 90s maybe. I take it you don't own a Sega CD. I agree with the Hollywood movie trend, but now they're using real-time 3d engines instead of awful actors and compressed cheese. Not really a big change. There will always be crappy linear games, games marketed to casual gamers that let them play along, holding their hand and letting them feel like they're doin' it. Luckily there's still good stuff out there.

Share this post


Link to post

Gonna have to agree with all diagrams shown in this thread so far.

FPS has definitley gone downhill overall since Doom (IMO, I know that other people have other opinions, and I respect that. Let's not be immature.) while games such as Goldeneye (was actually dissapointed with the Wii version, was basically COD re-skinned, I mean the original N64 version), Half-Life 1 + 2 and the original Halo keeping it well for a while, as soon as the modern COD games were released it's been a monopoly of the same game being released every year for £50 which is the "game of the year" and gets about 95% of the whole gaming industry's money and attention, when IMO it's just another generic FPS, and almost every other new release tries to follow it's suit (and failing).

Modability is the reason so many of these slightly older FPSes are still going strong, how many of you would be still here right now if it weren't for ID's idea of making Doom mod-friendly?

EDIT: Is it sad that I knew as soon as I saw it that it was E1M6?

Share this post


Link to post

BTW gooberman you forgot the other reddit thread =]




luckily I have the most popular comment:


That isn't Doom's storytelling. Doom had a great exposition in the instruction manual, and the story is told by the levels' gameplay, combined with a few text summaries in between the episodes. It should be pretty clear that episode 1 is on phobos, you reach the portal to deimos, and you are ambushed in complete darkness. Episode 1 ends with an explanation of what happened, and what is ahead in episode 2, in which you explore the mysteriously warped, ruined deimos base. As you progress, it is apparent that the demons have twisted the base. The game does not need to tell you. You feel it. There are fewer zombies, now, here. On the map screen between levels, you can see that the demons are building their own tower of babel nearby on the moon. You reach it, defeat the cyberdemon, stare off the tower, and discover that the deimos base floats above hell itself, and you "rappel" down into it for episode 3, to put a stop to the invasion. Exploring hell is plenty exciting enough without cutscene explanations. There are almost no human zombies in hell. The map combined with the level names are intriguing enough to spark the imagination (if you have one). For example, "Mt. Erebus", "Gateway to Limbo". Episode 3's ending hints that meanwhile, the demons are invading Earth.

Doom is one of my favorite games, and it's story is presented through exposition, setting, and the levels themselves. For another example, look at Resident Evil 4. If you take out the president's daughter stuff, is there much plot besides setting and exposition? You're in a village, a castle, some caves, and and island. The enemies change to help you understand setting change (plot movement). You talk to your enemy, but it is mostly banter. You meet with Ada Wong, but nothing really comes out of it. Most of the cutscenes are purely to tell you where to go.



I might have messed up that second paragraph because I was trying to say I love RE4 too, but it might come off as I don't. Luckily, one person disputed it, and I was able to better explain.

Ultraboy94 said:

EDIT: Is it sad that I knew as soon as I saw it that it was E1M6?


The crosses in the bottom right are pretty telltale!

Share this post


Link to post

when I think about it, I find this true

10 years ago games had spirit and structure, but now its just Cutscene, Cutscene, Cutscene and More ( yes more, notice how cool ) Cutscenes!...

I hardly by any new games beacuse they have sucky design or boring gameplay or just no feeling at all

Share this post


Link to post

So, after all the modern-FPS-bashing going on, I have to ask:

Are there any modern(ish... last 10 years?) FPS's that you really like, that this thread doesn't really apply to? Because I want to play them :)
I notice HL1/2 were mentioned... are they good? I should probably try them.
Also someone mentioned the original Halo... I played a fair way through it before the repetitive level design sort of pushed me away. By that I mean that a lot (not all) of the levels seemed to be mostly made up of two or three rooms, copypasted several times. It gets REALLY annoying when I am trying to reach the exit, and I think 'hey... haven't I gone through this exact same identical sequence of rooms 2-3 times?' It quite destroyed any sense of progression.
</rant>

Share this post


Link to post
Ultraboy94 said:

EDIT: Is it sad that I knew as soon as I saw it that it was E1M6?

It actually took me a few minutes to figure that one out. Probably because I almost never play that level. I feel ashamed to call myself a Doom fan now (._.)

stewboy said:

So, after all the modern-FPS-bashing going on, I have to ask:

Are there any modern(ish... last 10 years?) FPS's that you really like, that this thread doesn't really apply to? Because I want to play them :)

HL2 was good, though I'd say the pictures showing the differences in map design still applies in some of the areas. Serious Sam is the only one I can think of where this thread doesn't necessarily apply off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
stewboy said:

So, after all the modern-FPS-bashing going on, I have to ask:

Are there any modern(ish... last 10 years?) FPS's that you really like, that this thread doesn't really apply to? Because I want to play them :)


Perfect Dark (the most replayability in a console FPS EVER)
DooM 3 (hurrr)
CoD 1-WaW
Quake 4 (fuck off)
Soldier of Fortune
Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield
ArmA: Armed Assault
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
America's Army

Share this post


Link to post
Partition36 said:

Serious Sam is the only one I can think of where this thread doesn't necessarily apply off the top of my head.

To be honest, Serious Sam is more of a pseudo-parody and continuation of old school FPS than a modern shooter, though I suppose it fits the bill of "last ten years".

I have to say, I honestly like the added cutscenes in modern games. I like my games to have a story and a good high quality soundtrack. It's really only the linearity that's bogging down the quality of gameplay. Well, that and overly simplified shooting mechanics(seriously? It's 2010, almost 2011. I think we should be past retardedly accurate hitscan weapons in modern games by now. Bring forth projectiles with spread and drop.) plus ridiculously high aim assist(on the console side of course, Halo anyone?) and GOD DAMN LOCK ON MELEE ATTACKS THAT ARE STRONGER THAN EVERY OTHER WEAPON IN THE GAME AND THE IDEA THAT EVERYTHING "NEEDS" REGENERATING HEALTH ARHGEIWOGWHNGOIWN.[/ranty part]

Again, I really don't think the cutscenes are the problem in any way here, it's just a way of telling a story that goes beyond "make shit up while killing everything".

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. Freeze said:

DooM 3 (hurrr)


I have no room to speak for any of the other games because I had never played them, but Doom 3 was definitely loaded with linear gameplay and cutscenes so I question your opinion on any of the other games being as though this is on the list.

In response to some of the stuff Xeros said, in my speculation, I feel like a lot of games being made these days are pretty obvious derivitaves of each other. The game designers obviously play games and read reviews. They see things that game reviewers hate, and things game reviewers love. It seems pretty set in stone that we don't like to die easily and have to replay something from the beginning, so the game autosaves for you every 20 seconds and makes you either have a fuckton of health or you just never die unless you play completely carelessly. We like game mechanics we can understand, we hate getting lost, and we LOOOOVVEEE online multiplayer.

I feel as though all game developers are in such fierce competition with each other and are all on a quest to create the perfect game based on what they understand. It seems pretty set in stone what qualities we like in games which kinda dilutes the overall outcomes of games being developed these days. What the industry lacks are people who are willing to create a game that they wanna make, regardless of what reviews and popular opinions will follow in its wake. We need people who will stand up and say "I"m gonna make whatever the fuck I want because I know what I wanna play. If you don't like it, I don't give a shit. It's the game I wanted to make" but video game developing is so expensive these days and creating anything that has a snowballs chance in hell in getting noticed by the general public is pretty close to impossible. Good luck creating something that appears new without having much competitive visual design.

Share this post


Link to post
Xeros612 said:

I have to say, I honestly like the added cutscenes in modern games. I like my games to have a story


Ultima Underworld II did not have any cutscene. There was an intro and an ending sequence; but they don't cut anything since they are at the beginning and end.

Yet, I challenge any game released in the last ten years to have more story than it. You can add cutscenes and voice acting, but that won't give you story, that'll just force-feed plot (or filler) to the player.

Share this post


Link to post
stewboy said:

So, after all the modern-FPS-bashing going on, I have to ask:

Are there any modern(ish... last 10 years?) FPS's that you really like, that this thread doesn't really apply to? Because I want to play them :)
I notice HL1/2 were mentioned... are they good? I should probably try them.
Also someone mentioned the original Halo... I played a fair way through it before the repetitive level design sort of pushed me away. By that I mean that a lot (not all) of the levels seemed to be mostly made up of two or three rooms, copypasted several times. It gets REALLY annoying when I am trying to reach the exit, and I think 'hey... haven't I gone through this exact same identical sequence of rooms 2-3 times?' It quite destroyed any sense of progression.
</rant>


FPSs that I enjoy that are linear:
-Bioshock (1 and 2)
-Half Life 2
-Portal
-Doom 3 (mainly because of the atmospherics rather than any actual gameplay)

FPSs that I enjoy and are fairly non-linear:
-Fallout 3 (an excellent combo of storytelling, re playability, and action)
-ID Tech 1 games
-Left 4 Dead

Share this post


Link to post

Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 both have fairly linear levels that also have a few side rooms you can explore (and you will probably want to, since supplies can be scarce)

Share this post


Link to post
udderdude said:

Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 both have fairly linear levels that also have a few side rooms you can explore (and you will probably want to, since supplies can be scarce)


a lot of the maps will occassionally offer different ways to proceed too though. Like the beginning of the map with the gas station in L4D1. There's two paths you can take to get to the dinner a little ways away from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
40oz said:

It seems pretty set in stone that we don't like to die easily and have to replay something from the beginning, so the game autosaves for you every 20 seconds

It's funny, halflife 2 is certainly on my list of games I didn't enjoy too much, but I played through episode 1 recently. Episode 1 is filled with the most contrived displays of stupid shit that will kill you outright unless you know in advance what is coming, thus requiring constant autosaves.

For fun, if anyone has episode 1, play through the game with commentary and listen to it all, much of it is the devs coming up with excuses as to why they need to restrain you with level geometry and everything else. Very telling stuff straight from the horses mouth.

Share this post


Link to post

To show you a practical example of the ultra-linear sketch in the OP, here's the Doom 3 Hell1 level:


There are a couple of teleport spots, but that's it.

A few levels manage to conceal the linearity into a more compact shape (such as Administration), but not all of them.

Share this post


Link to post

IMO, the original Doom games, and their clones (Hexen especially) have the most free-roaming, explorational gameplay, outside of the RPG genre. Some obvious ones are Mt. Erebus, Limbo, E1M4, Slough of Despair, Pandemonium, Unholy Cathedral, E2M2, actually it would be much easier to list the levels that are not insanely linear. And the later hubs of Hexen are just outstanding, I've never seen anything like it, the way they let you loose.

BTW Quake 4 is the most linear game I've ever played, with the single most annoying cutscene levels I've ever sat through. Love that game though.

Share this post


Link to post
Quast said:

thus requiring constant autosaves.


That's not what Konami said when they made Contra!

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×