I just wrote up this large comment on an Eurogamer article titled 'Less is More'. Considering that no-one will read my comment there anyway, I reposted here.
These days when I come to Eurogamer, the mainpage is always filled with news about new games I've never even heard of. And after reading the (p)review which praises it into heaven, my desire to play such games is exactly nil.
The game industry has moved towards producing disposable games. You can no longer expect your (now tiny, DVD sized btw) box to last you more than a week.
And when the industry attempts to follow up on a classic, it fails miserably: 'Master of Orion 3' totally missed the point. And in 'Freelancer' it seems the designers forgot that if you give the player a giant universe to roam around in, that you actually need to provide something to DO in that giant universe. I'm sure there are other frappant examples.
Replay value and durability have partially been replaced by what was once considered to be the holy grail of gaming: multiplayer. But are online RPGs really whole new fantasy worlds where you can lead a different life? Not really, in the end you still just have to keep smashing up monsters for yet another packet of experience. The difference is that you can now do it with another person who is just as bored as you.
And online strategy games are so filled with fanatics, that any occasional player who wants to have some fun will get bashed to death through the latest new gameplay inbalance. The fun factor is absent here and replaced by the desire to be #1 in whatever ranking system CrappyCompany has set up.
No thank you.
Where are games like Fallout? System Shock? Master of Orion 2? Outcast? Torment?
Why is everyone drooling up on Doom 3 just because it offers stencil shadows and bump mapping? I'll take System Shock's psychological horror any time over Doom3's 'cheap' *cough* effects.
And here's the biggest contradiction of them all: if games today are all designed as disposable products, why isn't the point-and-click adventure genre thriving? These are perfect play-once games that you can put away at any moment and resume later.
What I want to see is the First Person Shooter concept rethought. What's wrong with them you might think? First, let's consider movement:
- Because of the inaccuracy of the controls, everything is oversized. Usually this isn't too noticable, except when a lot of other characters (or mirrors) are present and ingame cutscenes are used. Look straight ahead and compare the game's eye-line with the real world. Desks will commonly be shoulder-height. Toilet stalls can easily fit an elephant. This was most obvious to me when I played Undying a while ago.
- The most important limbs in FPS games are the legs. Need to pick that box up from the table? Forget about those arms (they're holding your rediculously oversized gun anyway) and jump on the table to pick it up.
- Want to get up on that ledge in front of you? If you're not playing Thief or System Shock, you better find a staircase because Our Hero™ cannot climb up.
- Need a candidate for this year's triathlon? No problem. Our Hero can run like the wind for hours on end, can swim like a dolphin and can pilot any vehicle at rediculous speeds.
Secondly, what you can do in the game. Game physics are an important part of this, but why does nearly every FPS involve mowing down hordes of enemies? This is even more painfully obvious in multiplayer FPSes, where during a typical game, you respawn about 50-60 times. I hope you have good karma.
I get the idea that no-one really knows what gamers want, so they just keep on doing the same old thing again. I understand that making a game today is wholly different from a couple of years ago, but I refuse to believe that all that game-designing talent suddenly got flushed down the toilet when 3D accelerators became popular.
(feel free to recommend me some proper games to play these days, because I'm tired of waiting for Deus Ex 2 / Thief 3, which will probably not live up to their predecessors anyway)
yeah well fuckya
yo steve, its sidd. Want to know what the hype is about doom3?
Like all of ID's other exploits, on can be safe in assuming that it wont have the custart tart weaponary and physics gimicks that most other games have today. Doom3 will be well rounded, solid, and whole-heartedly devoted to allow for fast paced fragging. This is what i look for in a fps. Realism is no coin in the matter. As for playability, how is it that i am still into quake 1? its a game with an [b]incerdibly[/b] simple concept, yet Quake 1 is still my fav fps of all time. simply because it doesnt fuck around. The maps, the engine, and the physics are all based around solid game-play. There are no novelties, every element has its uses and can be mastered. This is why carmack is god, and this is why doom3 will rock.
As for the technology, the bump mapping and stencil shadow are nothing really to show off about. Perhaps they are new and spiffy, but they are quite limited. Bump mapping will only ever generate shiny looking faces and metallic looking textures, which is exactly what doom3 is all about. Stencil shadows will only ever create the effect of few light sources, low lit rooms, which is exactly what doom3 is all about. My point is, these things arent really show offs, but are implemented because they will compliment the game's style.
now then, when it comes to the deus-ex and system shock stylus, i take on a whole new rating scheme. These games are a totaly different sport. They shouldnt be compared. I love deus ex just as much as you (you know this), but i will still be more eagrly awaiting doom3 than i am de2 or ss3.
care to retort?
Fence sitting on.
Summed up pretty well... I hate to have to sit on the fence, but I agree with both of you. Yes, Carmack is god, and yes, DooM³ will be an amazing experience. iD have spent a large amount of time working the physics engine for this game.. I personally am looking forward to the effects of this engine much more than the graphical effects.. after all we've already seen them in varying demos. The physics engine is what will place DooM³ head and shoulders above the competition. I do agree that the current state of FPS is a bit.. well... pathetic. The control systems are adequate but could definately be improved, moving around the an FPS world can be a real pain in the ass. I believe that the future of FPS style games ironically lies in third person viewpoints, after all they make it easier to see what you are doing and make it easier for the developers to add new movement abilities to their characters. Jedi Knight II is a good example of this... really average as far as games go today but I thought that the third person control system was ideal for the situation, it allows for intuitive close quarters combat and doesn't bodge up your camera orientation when you run half way up a wall and flip off of it. Another great example of current game technology development is the fact that a new genre of sorts is beginning to slip in, the 'Jack of all trades' style game like GTA3, for instance, (which probably eats more FPS than three instances of quake3.exe and still looks much much worse than all of them) where by the gameplay possibilities are expanded by mixing well defined game elements and giving the player a large and well populated environment to explore.
On the other hand we are starting to see some really big negative changes in the gaming industry. Most significant is that the biggest game titles are the ones that are advertised the most or sponsor the most programmes on Sky One. When I first had access to a computer there were no adverts for computer games, no multi-million dollar budgets and no big fat companies, censors and 'do-gooders' having their numerous degrading effects on games. I have no doubt that the recent lack of decent titles is due to the pressure put on developers to adhere to so many new regulations and to still beat the competition. The best example is Quake 3 which was clearly rushed out because Unreal Tournament was doing so well, which was itself blatantly rushed out because Quake 3 was nearly ready. Result: two incomplete (and really non-revolutionary in retrospect) games come onto the market, dominate it and thus lower the industry standards. These days computer games crash Windows more often, have nasty clipping errors, are really short, have more z-fighting than ever and generally come in one of those tacky little plastic DVD cases which must be cheaper than those cardbord boxes I remember so well (and still have the original Quake trilogy set of). This covers general software too, the industry set standards are abyssmal, if they even exist. Why can't someone actually finish a piece of software? No one buys unfinished TVs or buggy radios that switch channels at random or cars that randomly explode, why should software get let off of the hook so easily? I personally don't buy computer games because they really are not worth the money, I'll try a game (or demo), typically dislike it and then consign it to the virtual oblivion of my hard drive, or I'll like then two months later it will randomly stop working (properly) for no good reason.
Only rarely are there great games, and these are the ones we remember the most and so compare future games to. Even near the beginning there were countless games made that were just plain crap. On the other hand some games have never been equalled or surpassed. I haven't played a single RPG since Fallout 2 that comes close to its quality of gameplay. Singleplayer FPS plots have become weak and well.. weak, relying heavily on some celebrity voice and some vaguely above standard special effects to entertain. Even Quake 1 has more storyline than some of the games that are popping up on the market today.
In short the game industry needs some new blood but is doing ok as it is, expect great things from DooM³. I think if we want to see these miraculous wonder games then we are going to have to do it ourselves. What I mean is I'll have to do it myself - but thats the ego talking.
No way
I still think Doom3 is going to be a mediocre game. Carmack is a good programmer, but that's really it. I wonder what would happen if they could get him to work with better game designers (I was going to say Warren Spector, but Deus Ex 2 was released under his 'supervision' and it sucks). Deus Ex 2 also has Havoc physics, yet it didn't manage to save the game one bit (*).
The main issue I have with stuff like 'real physics' is that some programmers seem to be forgetting that it's just rigid body dynamics. Just because you can simulate that correctly, doesn't mean you can simulate every possible object interaction correctly.
What would impress me most now would be a good ol' static lighted engine, but that handles radiosity in its lighting stage. If they code it smartly, they can still have nice effects like togglable lights (so that all affected lightmaps change correctly). Plus, something like that would allow the level designers to create awesome levels.
(*) I haven't played Deus Ex 2 myself (can't run it), but everything I hear makes me cringe in pain: an inventory/menu system that does not use the mouse (it's the same as on the XBox) is just crazy today. If there is no-one on the entire team that realizes this is madness, especially when you have great examples such as System Shock 2 or Deus Ex 1 to learn from. System Shock 2 has an amazing inventory, especially if you set middle mouse button to access it: nothing's in the way until you need it, and then it's available with one click anywhere on the screen.
Plus, lack of leaning and total absence of age-old features such as decals (no blood splats, no bullet holes, no dirt due to explosions, ...) or gibbing makes me wonder. And apparently the physics engine is set up like crap: enemies don't move when they get hit and live, yet fly backwards several meters when the final shot hits. I don't think these people have heard of conservation of momentum? (I sincerely doubt that the impact of a bullet would have any large effect on a normal human being's velocity)
I whole-heartedly agree on th
I whole-heartedly agree on the Doom3 point of view.
I think the saying these days goes... "Doom 3 looks awsome. I Can't wait for somone to make a game out of it".
Don't get me wrong, I do think it looks fantastic. id. makes great engines. But that's about it.
I wasn't really a hardcore gamer back in the days of Quake 1, and other glorified games, so I can't really say much about those, nor do I feel compelled to find out what I may or may not be missing.
As for input on games that may be worth playing, I do have a few suggestions that you may or maynot like.
One that caught me by complete surprise, was Sacrifice.
(http://www.interplay.com/games/product.asp?GameID=300)
At times it seems you need more than 10 fingers to play it, but that's easily circumvented by just not using the default key bindings. It's one of those types of games that really s it's own genre. FPS/third person/fantasy/rpg. It's also one of the only games I ever bought the day it came out. Mostly I'm quite happy to wait until something's 20 bucks in the bargain bin otherwise.
About the only thing that I'm interested in that's yet to be released is the until recently unheard of Perimeter.
(http://www.kdlab.com/eng/projects/project_view.php?id=8)
I've been waiting for it for at least a year now, and was surprised to see Codemasters pick up it's international distribution. I've always been a fan of RTS' which always helps.
One other little game you may have seen around (or not), is Starscape.
(www.moonpod.com/English/about_ss.php)
Very asteroidsy, but with some added things like research, resource gathering, ship construction and customization, and a pretty neat soundtrack (If you like techno/electronic type stuff). Makes a nice break from the monotony of straight out clones.
I've never been a fan of anything that has "MMO*" in it's description anywhere. Myltiplayer is fine, as long as the people you're playing for, with, or aganst, shut up. seeing as most of them don't realise they have the communication skills of a spoilt 5 year old, I loose my pations before reaching whatever fraglimit is set, or end up being kicked/banned/flamed for quietly enjoying my fragging time.
I was understandably taken aback when I saw (and even dared to try)...
Savage.
(http://www.s2games.com/savage/index.html)
It's got a nasty "must not do anything but play this for a few days" feel about it, but after the initial 2 days of being in a large group of tantruming 5 year olds... heh. It's also a native Linux runner, so I was pleased with that being mostly free of the shackles that is Wind'ohs.
Wow. this is a large comment... I should probably wrap this up.
As for the coming "highlights" of the gaming industry (Doom3, Half Life 2, Thief 3, Starcraft Ghost, World of Warcraft... the list sadly goes on), I could care less to be honest. :|
Cool
The only thing in your "coming highlights" list that I am looking forward to is Thief 3, simply because Thief 1 and 2 are still wicked games. If they screw Thief 3 up I will have lost my last bit of faith in the gaming industry.
Of the other games you mentioned, I've only tried Starscape (the demo): I thought it was a refreshing concept, but overall I didn't really like it. The constant space combat was rather annoying, and the combination of arcade gameplay with strategy didn't work well for me. I didn't like the idea of being strategic in a world where the enemy spawns randomly anyway. On top of that, the interface outside space combat was designed horribly. I got the idea that mouse support was added only at the end.
I've still not figured out what makes a good game for me: asymmetry between the player and the rest of the world seems important to me (which is why I don't like MMO* games where 'everyone is equal'), but only if it is believable. In Starscape what broke the illusion for me was that as the player, you don't do anything remarkably different from the enemy (just fly around shooting stuff), yet you are still able to beat incredible odds. This is what I like about Thief: because you're faced with overwhelming odds, you shift the rules of play so you are in advantage, by being sneaky and avoiding enemies unless necessary.