FPS article

[avatar_58]

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060901/quantum_01.shtml

Kind of a look back to see which shooters moved the genre ahead the most. I agree with many, but why did they shrug off Duke3D as nothing when clearly it was one of the few games back then to add features such as environmental interaction/destruction?

I also don't feel Quake added sweet frick all to the genre, and merely started the downward trend towards 3D polygons over style. Thats just my opinion though, and I do acknowledge that it was the game to bring 3D graphics to shooters.

I'm damn glad they chose Goldeneye as the champion of console shooter innovation over Halo. Every article I read lists Halo.....but what did Halo do? Nothing, it was all Goldeneye that popularized and made console shooters possible. I've not played a single console FPS to top it.

Half-life gets first, mainly because it was a complete package and for that I agree.

Anyway read through the comments and tidbits, its a decent article. :)

[Telee]

How could they leave Duke Nukem 3D out? :o

Also, that bit on Goldeneye makes me want to replay it again :)

[Phayzon]

Doom only made an Honerable Mention?
Im glad Marathon made it and not Halo :)
Im really surprised Wolf3D didnt get first becuase, after all it went from [ nothing ] to Wolf3D
Id agree on Half-Life... but it was dull and boring.

[Lethe]

but it was dull and boring.

Weird, I didn't noticed.

[TerminX]

WTF? They have this stuff under HL as alleged innovations:

Non enemy characters (as opposed to if it moves, you must kill it)
Blake Stone, 1993.

Seamless area transitions (as opposed to end-the-level-buttons or areas)
Hexen, 1994.

Things to interact with besides doors, leading to great problem solving levels
Duke Nukem 3D, 1996.

A story that was experienced in play rather than told to you
I guess this one is almost valid. I don't quite see how it's innovative, though. Applying an existing method of storytelling to a game isn't really an innovation.

A sense of immersion that still seems hard to match today
Well, okay. I guess if seeing the same three scientists and the same security guard get offed over and over during the course of the game qualifies, then yeah.

A very user friendly online multiplayer interface (what? I don't have to enter an IP address? wow!)
Um.. QuakeSpy, anyone?

Anyways, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think it's quite fair to ignore a bunch of the older games and then credit what they brought to the table to a later game that featured many of the same concepts, even if that game is Half-Life.

[avatar_58]

Yeah that kind of struck me. I think there really needs to be a definitive FPS look-back that lists what features REALLY were innovations and who did what first. I loved HL1 but come on, it wasn't truly innovative - it was more like a package of the best features.

I get the impression these guys missed a few gems along the way and thats why the ones chosen are kind of off.

Also tx - each comment was kind of submitted, so its more the un-educated public than anything else. Although they *did* add it almost like it was fact.

[Phayzon]

Way to go TX! :D

[Opus131]

Applying an existing method of storytelling to a game isn't really an innovation.


And applying an existing point of view (first person) is?

Come on now, i agree with all your previous points but let's not get too carried away... :D

[FullMetalJacket]

DN3D, as I recall, was the first game to have crouching, reflections, major environmental interactivity and fully supported mouselook.

[avatar_58]

Actually System Shock came out first with some of those features. Although Duke3D reallty did up the ante on environmental destruction and detail.

[Lethe]

Well, okay. I guess if seeing the same three scientists and the same security guard get offed over and over during the course of the game qualifies, then yeah.

I would completely agree with your post if you didn't make this statement which almost fits in trolling category.

Immersiveness factor basicaly sold Half Life 1.

[avatar_58]

I would completely agree with your post if you didn't make this statement which almost fits in trolling category.

Why that doesn't happen in Half-life? Maybe my copy is bugged then....

[Lethe]

Why that doesn't happen in Half-life? Maybe my copy is bugged then....

What didn't happen in Half Life?

[TerminX]

I would completely agree with your post if you didn't make this statement which almost fits in trolling category.
Oh c'mon, it's a valid point. That kind of thing breaks immersion. Using the same models and skins over and over for enemies that are dispatched of quickly is fine, but having the same few characters that actually speak and interact with you die over and over really throws me out of the game. Even worse is the fact that they were all given actual names at some point! This would be like re-using the Paul Denton or Jock models in Deus Ex as random guys that get shot and killed every now and then.

Don't think I'm trying to bash HL or anything, I mostly agree that it provided a decent level of immersion except for on this issue.

[Lethe]

Oh c'mon, it's a valid point. That kind of thing breaks immersion.

I agree that it breaks immersion. But it looked like you adressed the whole "immersion" factor of Half Life oversimplifying it to the level of that only issue. Nevermind...

I played Half-Life back when it came out so it didn't bothered me so much, probably cose of the fact that very few first person shooters at that time used more than three different faces for human npcs, except for key characters. But I admit it was funny though...

[YicklePigeon]

Here's the thing, I still play Duke 3D. I don't play the original Half-Life. Who here still plays the vanilla Half-Life 1 single player campaign? It was great first time around, good the second time and downright boring the third. Add to this, the end boss was completely anti-climatic.

It's so easy to come up with a list of FPS games that just lists the likes of Doom and Half-Life...but to not include Duke 3D...well that's just makes the entire article almost worthless.

I say "almost" because they do include Descent and both System Shocks, what a shame they couldn't also find it in their heart to include the Thief games as well! Especially Thief 1, the first game to really take advantage of 3D sound, AI and shadows.

As for HL1 being the so-called "first to not tell you the story but play it", I seem to recall characters telling you what's going on and points in the game where everyone is stood around talking, discussing events happening in the game and thus providing a narrative. It should be noted that System Shock lets you play the game and you don't necessarily have to read every email in the game to find out what's going on...although being the person that I am, I would. :P

Regards,

Yickle.

[PlayfulPuppy]

I never understood the whole Half-Life craze. I mean yeah, it was a good game, but being a huge GoldenEye, Duke3D and Quake 2 fan, I really didn't see all that much as being innovative.

The things that actually stuck out as pretty cool when I was playing it were:

- Reload animations. GoldenEye was the first game I can remember that had reloading, but HL was the first one to have reload animations. It added a lot to the gun-play.
- The animation system was great. I especially liked how the characters actually interacted with the environment rather than just standing there and talking, that was great.
- The non-violent introduction was a novel twist.
- Blood splatters on the wall and scortch marks from explosions. Duke3D did blood splatters first, but Half-Lifes seemed a little more real.

The AI never struck me as anything special, Quake 2s characters were able to run and hide, too. The story annoyed the hell out of me because it was obviously just an embellishment on Dooms story. The puzzles didn't sell me at all, because puzzles in FPS games were all the craze at that stage anyway. I also found the sound design to be exceptionally poor and the environments to be drab and lifeless.

I've tried playing through half-life again recently, and I just can't do it.

[Travis]

this list is fairly mediocre.

i was surprised duke nukem 3D wasnt in there

and yeah, what's the big deal about quake.
not even id knew they were going to make quake to begin with, it was kind of thrown together

[Twin]

i also think duke 3d should've been there for interactivity and airvents :D

[X-Vector]

I get the impression these guys missed a few gems along the way and thats why the ones chosen are kind of off.


Of course there will always be omissions; one major example that is mentioned neither in the GS article nor this thread is Jedi Knight, which isn't just a personal favourite but a worthy contender as well.
The way it worked RPG elements into the core shooter gameplay (upgradeable force powers, dark/light side allegiance through play style) and offered a valid melee alternative really set it apart, aside from the fantastic level design that offered (and still offers) more of an adventure feel than any other FPS I remember.
JK undoubtedly has its flaws, but as a package, it delivered like nothing else at the time - just like its predecessor Dark Forces did in '95.

Half-life gets first, mainly because it was a complete package and for that I agree.
Indeed: "whether it be an early game that helped define the FPS, or a more recent one which took those core ideas and developed a more rewarding experience than before."

No qualms with that, Half-Life really was something special from the first second I played it.
The first hour of the game alone warrants its inclusion in the list, IMO.

I also found the sound design to be exceptionally poor and the environments to be drab and lifeless.


That's strange, I usually agree with many of your points, but in this case my opinion is the complete opposite.
Williams' Star Wars score in JK aside, the HL music is my overall favourite thus far; I still get a kick out of it playing it on my stereo from time to time.
The environmental audio is ace as well and is responsible for much of my fascination with the game.
As for HL's world design, I think it's top-tier, both in quality and variety (which is very important to me and a big reason why I'm disappointed by the current state of FPS design).

WTF? They have this stuff under HL as alleged innovations:

Things to interact with besides doors, leading to great problem solving levels
Duke Nukem 3D, 1996.


No. Dark Forces, 1995.

[Phayzon]

I don't play the original Half-Life. Who here still plays the vanilla Half-Life 1 single player campaign?

I couldnt do it the first time :mryuck:. I made it to level 20 or so, and finding im still gunning down squads of 3 headcrabs with a shotgun, like I had done for the past 17 levels, I gave up.

[PlayfulPuppy]

That's strange, I usually agree with many of your points, but in this case my opinion is the complete opposite.

Not many people agree with my assesment of Half-Life, although I've come to accept that I appear to have a fairly isolated opinion of it. :)


Williams' Star Wars score in JK aside, the HL music is my overall favourite thus far; I still get a kick out of it playing it on my stereo from time to time.
The environmental audio is ace as well and is responsible for much of my fascination with the game.

The music was pretty good, yeah, but it was more the sound effects I was referring to. The guns sounded strange and weak, the footstep/jump sounds were strange and grating (To my ears, at least) and there was just something about it that set my teeth on edge.


As for HL's world design, I think it's top-tier, both in quality and variety (which is very important to me and a big reason why I'm disappointed by the current state of FPS design).

I just found that there were too many steel corridors, bunkers, sewers, factories, warehouses, drainpipes and 'lab' type environments. It felt like an amalgamated compendium of FPS cliches, and that was what got to me. The offices were cool, but the rest just felt too generic to me.

[avatar_58]

It felt like an amalgamated compendium of FPS cliches, and that was what got to me.

When did you play Half-life, when it came out or several years later? I don't recall many of those things being cliche when HL was first released when you think about it.

[PlayfulPuppy]

To be honest I can't really remember. I know I avoided it for a while because I confused it with a RTS called AfterLife, but I think I got into it about a year or so after its release.

Just to be clear, I don't think Half-Life is a bad game. When I played through it the first time, I wholeheartedly enjoyed it, it's just that I've never been able to understand its lasting appeal.

[alpha400]

Not many people agree with my assesment of Half-Life, although I've come to accept that I appear to have a fairly isolated opinion of it. :)



Half-life didn't impress me, too... the first levels were cool... but it got boring after a while...

also the music was good, but there just wasn't enough of it...
and it only played sometimes.

so you see, you are not alone...;)

[Duoae]

*speaks of greatness*

I agree 100% I loved Dark Forces. How could i have forgotten? It's one of my favourite FPS experiences to date along with Far Cry.

[SyntaxN]

Half-Life is #1, well deserved :)
I like the article a little bit because no HL2 was mentioned...no I don´t hate it! But the only thing it invented was the great use of a physics engine.

[Sang]

When I compare today's games with [Wolfenstein 3D] I find only a few differences.

Obviously this guy has had his head up his ass for the past 13 years.

Wolfenstein 3D - because it was the first.

The first FPS game was something called HooverTank. (or something close to that at least)


Anyways a lot of what's on there is bollocks.

[Phayzon]

The first FPS game was something called HooverTank. (or something close to that at least)


Battlezone

[Sang]

Wow, even before HT there were FPS's? :)

[Phayzon]

Wait, nevermind, BZ wasnt the first, it was either Spasim or Maze War.

[Lethe]

I couldnt do it the first time :mryuck:. I made it to level 20 or so, and finding im still gunning down squads of 3 headcrabs with a shotgun, like I had done for the past 17 levels, I gave up.

From your profile I see that you're 15 years old. You certanly didn't play it when it was released, but many years later. That explains a lot.

[Phayzon]

From your profile I see that you're 15 years old. You certanly didn't play it when it was released, but many years later. That explains a lot.

Err.... no it doesnt. While I did play it many years later, its certainly not due to age. I played Wolf3D shortly after its initial release

So you mean to tell me there was about 2 years of FPS-suckyness untill we started getting good games like in the early 90s?

[Lethe]

Err.... no it doesnt. While I did play it many years later, its certainly not due to age.

You probably didn't understand me. You played Half Life 1 after you played many newer (influenced by Half Life) shooters so it was not possible for you to experience it in "genre moving" light. I'm sorry but your opinion is not really relevant in this discussion of article about "genre-moving" games. You haven't been there to experience any genre moving in 1998.

[0marTheZealot]

HL is #1 because it deserves to be #1. Outside of HL2, few other game comes even close to the whole package HL brings. It was, and still is, one of the most polished games to come out. HL is still better than 90% of the shooters to come out today.

[YicklePigeon]

Lethe: When I was 9, Doom 1 Shareware had been released. And I was playing it. Before that I had been playing Wolf 3D, Commander Keen and all the rest.

So when it comes to Phayzon, being 15 now, it is quite conceivable that he was playing HL1 at age 8 or so (maybe he got his own copy or was playing a sibling's copy or whatever, makes no difference).

Also, children are being introduced to PC gaming all the time - I introduced some of the 6 and 7 year olds to the original Doom and they're genuinely amazed that they can even play a game on a PC. Because to them, a PC is mainly used in school for "boring stuff". So there they are, enjoying a 1993 game.

And I then start introducing them to later titles, so they get to experience 1993 games through to present day games in mere days.

Regards,

Yickle.

[someguy2435]

HL1 is great but IMO it didn't do a lot that wasn't done before by dozens of other games, it just took what they did and put it all in one really polished, well put together package.

[Sang]

Lethe: When I was 9, Doom 1 Shareware had been released. And I was playing it. Before that I had been playing Wolf 3D, Commander Keen and all the rest.

So when it comes to Phayzon, being 15 now, it is quite conceivable that he was playing HL1 at age 8 or so (maybe he got his own copy or was playing a sibling's copy or whatever, makes no difference).

Also, children are being introduced to PC gaming all the time - I introduced some of the 6 and 7 year olds to the original Doom and they're genuinely amazed that they can even play a game on a PC. Because to them, a PC is mainly used in school for "boring stuff". So there they are, enjoying a 1993 game.

And I then start introducing them to later titles, so they get to experience 1993 games through to present day games in mere days.

Regards,

Yickle.

Yes, we should draft all 6 year olds to become video game nerds! :D Power to the people!

Seriously though, there was a documentary on Belgian TV sometime ago about very young boys playing games. There was a 5-7 year old boy playing Quake 3 and he completely pwned at it.

I don't know, but if your 5 year old kid can already beat Fatal1ty (figuratively speaking) you must have ignored more important parts of education. I should know, I was never teached how to tie knobs and result is I still can't - apart from simple ones I make up at the spot. But if I'd be wearing shoes with shoelaces, chances are I probably wouldn't get them on. I have always worn shoes with stickers, still do ;)
Laugh at it all you want but it really "alienates" me from a lot of things.

But I'm offtopic :o

[Lethe]

Lethe: When I was 9, Doom 1 Shareware had been released. And I was playing it. Before that I had been playing Wolf 3D, Commander Keen and all the rest.

So when it comes to Phayzon, being 15 now, it is quite conceivable that he was playing HL1 at age 8 or so

He wasn't playing HL1 when it came out but much later, after he played numerous fps games influenced by HL1. Of course you can't see any genre moving stuff in HL1 when you played it many years after its release.

Even if he played it when he was 8, I wouldn't take his opinion so seriously, cose he haven't been able to experience it in right way.

[avatar_58]

He wasn't playing HL1 when it came out but much later, after he played numerous fps games influenced by HL1. Of course you can't see any genre moving stuff in HL1 when you played it many years after its release.

Actually you can if you compare it to whats available, and not whats released afterwards. I'm playing System Shock currently for instance, and it seems very innovative to me when compared to what was available in '94. You just have to have an open mind.

[Sang]

He wasn't playing HL1 when it came out but much later, after he played numerous fps games influenced by HL1. Of course you can't see any genre moving stuff in HL1 when you played it many years after its release.

That stuff doesn't really depend on your age (if you're above 6 or 7 you've got enough brains for it mostly) but on how closely you follow game sites. If I wasn't viewing these forums I would be completely oblivious to most announced/released games such as Crysis, Dark Messiah, Prey,... During the E3 I might visit gaming sites but that'd be it.

I vaguely remember a (beta?) shot of one of HL1's scientist when my dad was viewing one of his e-mails, but I was only 7 years old (or less in case it WAS beta) at the time and not as much of a gaming freak as I am now. ;) However if Phayzon was, I don't see why it's so impossible that he learned about Half Life's release at the time it was released and asked his mommy "I want it!"

Myself I hadn't played Half Life until 2004, but I already knew the title and the face of that scientist ever since I saw that shot I talked about earlier.

[Lethe]

Actually you can if you compare it to whats available, and not whats released afterwards. I'm playing System Shock currently for instance, and it seems very innovative to me when compared to what was available in '94. You just have to have an open mind.


I actually agree with System Shock case, but telling me that HL1 was dull and boring for its time is little off... I literary don't know any guy who wasn't immpressed by Half Life on the day when it was released.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Even if he played it when he was 8, I wouldn't take his opinion so seriously, cose he haven't been able to experience it in right way.

Hahaha... that's funny. Age doesn't mean you experience the game in the "right way." How ever you experience it is the "right way" for you.

I actually agree with System Shock case, but telling me that HL1 was dull and boring for its time is little off... I literary don't know any guy who wasn't immpressed by Half Life on the day when it was released.

It's dull and boring in some parts. I have hard times replaying it sometimes. It's not as fast paced as I like it.

[Lethe]

Hahaha... that's funny. Age doesn't mean you experience the game in the "right way." How ever you experience it is the "right way" for you.

I think that age matters in this case. HL1 was stylish and intelligent fps, never meant for 8 years old people. I don't really believe that you could really experience its atmosphere and setting in its full potential if you were 8 when you were playing it.

[avatar_58]

Oh now I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Not everyone is the same at younger ages. I enjoyed several adventure games when I was barely knee high, in fact I even enjoyed watching dad play them (which would probably make others bored out of their minds).

[Lethe]

Hahaha... that's funny. Age doesn't mean you experience the game in the "right way." How ever you experience it is the "right way" for you.



It's dull and boring in some parts. I have hard times replaying it sometimes. It's not as fast paced as I like it.

Replay value is another story. Personally, many fps games are boring me to death when I try to complete them for second time. Fps games rarely contain some replay value due to their linear nature.

[Lethe]

Oh now I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Not everyone is the same at younger ages. I enjoyed several adventure games when I was barely knee high, in fact I even enjoyed watching dad play them (which would probably make others bored out of their minds).

The thing is, you could enjoy any game at that age. But it is very hard to make some distinction between quality of those titles. Half Life was not meant to be played by kids, and I totally understand how it could be boring for kids. They just want to have fun and to shoot funny stuff all the time. Atmosphere and story rarely concernes them when its about fps games...

[Phayzon]

You probably didn't understand me. You played Half Life 1 after you played many newer (influenced by Half Life) shooters so it was not possible for you to experience it in "genre moving" light. I'm sorry but your opinion is not really relevant in this discussion of article about "genre-moving" games. You haven't been there to experience any genre moving in 1998.

Yeah, I actually just got HL1 last month :o !

To me, I can see that its nice to have all the past inovations wrapped into one, thats one thing it has going for it. To me, the gameplay was too slow... :( I figured by the 20th level/segment/whatever, id be done with shotgunning headcrabs, and on to something bigger, with a different gun.

[Mongorian]

Half-life changed first person shooters. The use of music, storytelling, and pace have, for better or worse, shaped first person shooters to this day. It's a game that all others of its genre is still often compared to. Sometimes I'll play a new first person shooter and think to myself "Half-life did this better". I don't think I'm alone on that.

No one in 1998 had seen anything like it. It made other first person shooters of the time (SiN, Blood 2, Shogo) look inferior. It sent Broussard back to the drawing board.

It deserves the praise it gets because it was unique and a lot of fun. But I think it's something you had to be there for.

[Telee]

Half-life changed first person shooters. The use of music, storytelling, and pace have, for better or worse, shaped first person shooters to this day. It's a game that all others of its genre is still often compared to. Sometimes I'll play a new first person shooter and think to myself "Half-life did this better". I don't think I'm alone on that.

No one in 1998 had seen anything like it. It made other first person shooters of the time (SiN, for Blood 2, Shogo) look inferior. It sent Broussard back to the drawing board.

It deserves the praise it gets because it was unique and a lot of fun. But I think it's something you had to be there for.

Quoted for truth. I wasn't there at the time of it's release, though. I remember when I had a really shitty comp, and when I first launched Half-Life, me and my brother were amazed :D

[avatar_58]

It deserves the praise it gets because it was unique and a lot of fun. But I think it's something you had to be there for.

Indeed. I only managed to play HL1 back then for a short time, as it wasn't my copy nor PC. I even got some time in online. I think I made it somewhere up to the point with the electrified water post-invasion.

I didn't actually get to have it till later in 2001 when I bought Blue Shift. So really I played the games in reverse order - Blue Shift - Opfor - HL1, though all within that year. I also spent AGES online with opfor. :D The lag of my shitty 56k didn't stop me.

I really am curious though - are people oblivious to how unique Duke3D was back in its day? Do they really attribute more innovation and 'genre moving' to Quake instead? That sort of blows my mind, I played both Duke3D and Quake when they were released and I STILL knew which was superior. Quake looked ugly and basic to me, while Duke was amazingly detailed and build must have kept me busy for many many years.

I don't expect DNF to blow me away, because that would be setting myself up for dissapointment. However part of me hopes DNF is going to show people what the hell they missed with Duke3D. Much of Duke's interaction and charm are gone today in favour of corridor shooters and the now overdone dark monster hallways.

HL2 did quite a bit as well for the genre I think. Although you wouldn't know it post release, as there haven't been too many games to learn from it.

[Telee]

I really am curious though - are people oblivious to how unique Duke3D was back in its day? Do they really attribute more innovation and 'genre moving' to Quake instead? That sort of blows my mind, I played both Duke3D and Quake when they were released and I STILL knew which was superior. Quake looked ugly and basic to me, while Duke was amazingly detailed and build must have kept me busy for many many years.

People probably started bowing down to Quake because it was 3D. Quake was the thing that made people graphic whores.

[avatar_58]

However Quake didn't look better, the characters looked like shit and the walls were mostly brown. The textures even appeared to be lower resolution than Doom. I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

What is it about Quake that people love? The simple gameplay? I can get that from Doom and at least the levels and monsters interest me. I'd like a decent answer from a Quake fan too - because I'm interested in knowing.

People always attribute graphics with Quake's strongest feature but I can't see it, and couldn't see it even on release. Quake 2 I can understand at that point (until HL1 which was infinitely more interesting level wise).

Quake's success always will be a mystery to me, I don't buy the first '3d' argument mainly because it was terrible to look at and most people weren't looking under the hood at the tech.

[Telee]

However Quake didn't look better, the characters looked like shit and the walls were mostly brown. The textures even appeared to be lower resolution than Doom. I'm sorry but I just don't get it.

What is it about Quake that people love? The simple gameplay? I can get that from Doom and at least the levels and monsters interest me. I'd like a decent answer from a Quake fan too - because I'm interested in knowing.

People always attribute graphics with Quake's strongest feature but I can't see it, and couldn't see it even on release. Quake 2 I can understand at that point (until HL1 which was infinitely more interesting level wise).

Quake's success always will be a mystery to me, I don't buy the first '3d' argument mainly because it was terrible to look at and most people weren't looking under the head at the tech.

I agree; The models did look terrible.

Also, just a question: Wasn't Duke Nukem 3D the first FPS to have your gun to the side of the screen?

[Phayzon]

What is it about Quake that people love? I'd like a decent answer from a Quake fan too - because I'm interested in knowing.

Everything, honestly...

The guns, the maps, the monsters, the multiplayer, the sound, the music (to some extend), the mood, the mods... All of it...

[Duoae]

I think that age matters in this case. HL1 was stylish and intelligent fps, never meant for 8 years old people. I don't really believe that you could really experience its atmosphere and setting in its full potential if you were 8 when you were playing it.

I have to disagree here too. I don't think HL was "made for a more grown up agegroup" it just used more grown up storytelling techniques.
The comparison of HL to other games before and around it is the same as silent short films to the first black and white (with sound) motion pictures.

Plus, when you're younger you have nostalgia experience. Not that i mean you have it then... but thinking back on it now, you do. So if someone was 8 when they played the game and enjoyed it then they would have a better thought of it than somone who was 24 at the time and had played many, many different games before it.
Perhaps this is why i love Dark Forces or Koronies Rift or Blake Stone. I like Half Life and can see some innovations, but to be honest, i can't see anything that wouldn't have happened anyway - especially as games came to emulate films in their execution and for their ideas. I think HL is given too much credit for what it did but then that's my personal experience of the whole FPS and general gaming genre.
I mean it made people sit up and listen, because it set a new standard, it just happened to be the first game to get to that point. It was coming eventually and we all know it.

[Lethe]

I have to disagree here too. I don't think HL was "made for a more grown up agegroup" it just used more grown up storytelling techniques.

I can see your point but I still think that you're not really able to fully understand and enjoy what is given in Half Life at that age. There are games for kids, and Half Life is simply not one of them.


I mean it made people sit up and listen, because it set a new standard, it just happened to be the first game to get to that point. It was coming eventually and we all know it.

That is already a whole lot for gaming, and I'm not sure about this "coming eventually" thing, cose I'm still struggling to find some similary interesting fps games that came out after Half Life. There is sure a few gems, but very few of them are crafted in so complete and satisfying package.

Personally, Half Life was also the first game that set me in really believable enviroment, which was a great improvement over other fps games at that time which had very hard time convincing me and giving me illusion that I'm part of the gaming world.

One can argue if Half Life is the best fps, cose everybody have their own taste and opinion, but undeniable fact is that it really moved the genre forward. It definitely deserved the place it holds in history of fps games.

Oh, and I also agree that it is blasphemy that Duke3d isn't given its place in the article.

[Duoae]

But being absorbed into the game and having the illusion that you're part of the gaming world is all subjective. There were plenty of games that were out years before half life that had me completely absorbed. Hell, Doom made how many people jump? Where they not absorbed in the game? (I'm only talking about that one aspect btw :) )

[Niap!]

What is it about Quake that people love? The simple gameplay? I can get that from Doom and at least the levels and monsters interest me. I'd like a decent answer from a Quake fan too - because I'm interested in knowing.

I was a huge Quake fan back when it was released, I was mainly attracted by the multiplayer/mod community. I remember installing my first voodoo 3d card, GL Quake improved the graphics, the modding/mapping community improved the rest. There was alot of really good improvements/additions by the mod community, I would agree that vanillla Q1 was pretty bland if all you experienced was the singleplayer.

[Lethe]

But being absorbed into the game and having the illusion that you're part of the gaming world is all subjective. There were plenty of games that were out years before half life that had me completely absorbed. Hell, Doom made how many people jump? Where they not absorbed in the game? (I'm only talking about that one aspect btw :) )

Well, Doom deserved its place under the moon cose it set new standards and brought many things to the table, and noone denies that, but I think that HL1 was the first game to succeed in beliveably mimicking real life situations and enviroments.

[Duoae]

Real life? You think a base would have been designed like that? With a giant incinerator in the middle (one of the boss puzzles)?

As i said, it's all subjective. I wasn't saying Doom is better than HL, in fact Doom shouldn't be on that list since i don't think it did anything new from Wolfenstein. I'm sure someone can tell me something but i don't really remember anything different except slightly better graphics.

[0marTheZealot]

Real life? You think a base would have been designed like that? With a giant incinerator in the middle (one of the boss puzzles)?


Err, that was a test rocket..... not an incinerator. Didn't you notice the line-in labeled "fuel" and "oxygen", not to mention a scientist telling you to run the test rocket to send that creature back to wherever it came from?


As i said, it's all subjective. I wasn't saying Doom is better than HL, in fact Doom shouldn't be on that list since i don't think it did anything new from Wolfenstein. I'm sure someone can tell me something but i don't really remember anything different except slightly better graphics.


Doom did a ton of things for the genre compared to Wolf3D (which was still a good game). Elevation, differential lighting, elevators, walls that aren't 90 degrees, environmental effects (radiation, exploding barrels), bigger areas, better draw distance, more enemies at a time, flying enemies. And that's just off the top of my head!

[Duoae]

I didn't see any rocket in the room with the creature. Plus why would the buttons to the fuel and oxygen be in the control room... situated inside the rocket "chute". It defies all logic.

Ludicrous!

Cool, thanks for enlightening me on Doom's added features :)

[Lethe]

Real life? You think a base would have been designed like that? With a giant incinerator in the middle (one of the boss puzzles)?.

Oh c'mon, common player won't notice that building in a game is not designed by some arhitecture standards. That was closest to real life and other games didn't even come close to it in 1998. Let me ask you something... You played Half Life in 1998 or much later? I mean, I don't understand how any game in 1998 could appeal to you if you don't think that was immersive for its time.

[Duoae]

Duke 3D? That was more real life.

Face it. It's all subjective as i said. Real is irrelevant in games.

[0marTheZealot]

I didn't see any rocket in the room with the creature. Plus why would the buttons to the fuel and oxygen be in the control room... situated inside the rocket "chute". It defies all logic.

Ludicrous!

Did you even play the same game I did? They were in seperate rooms. You had to travel outside on the bridges (dodging the tentacles) to activate fuel/oxygen and once more to activate power. If you look at the roof of the room, you'll clearly see a rocket's thrusters above the hole where the tentacled monster is. It really couldn't be more obvious.

[Lethe]

Duke 3D? That was more real life.

Face it. It's all subjective as i said. Real is irrelevant in games.

It can be subjective but there also can be some norms and facts about that. Duke3D more real? Well, ok man, it is your opinion like you stated before. Altough a funny one ;)

[Duoae]

Er... yeah i did and if you remember there was no "glass" in the window in the control room. No silo in real life would have a control centre for firing a rocket underground and definitely not under the rocket itself.

[Duoae]

It can be subjective but there also can be some norms and facts about that. Duke3D more real? Well, ok man, it is your opinion like you stated before. Altough a funny one ;)

Hey! You can pee in the toilet so at least that's real. Gordon just goes in his suit :)

*HEV* Warning! Toxicity level rising!
*Gordon* Aaaahh. :)

[Lethe]

Hey! You can pee in the toilet so at least that's real. Gordon just goes in his suit :)

*HEV* Warning! Toxicity level rising!
*Gordon* Aaaahh. :)

How could he pee if he didn't drink anything during the whole Half Life? He was literary dehidrated at the end of the game :)

[Lethe]

Er... yeah i did and if you remember there was no "glass" in the window in the control room. No silo in real life would have a control centre for firing a rocket underground and definitely not under the rocket itself.

It was design decision. Game is more interesting that way.

[0marTheZealot]

Er... yeah i did and if you remember there was no "glass" in the window in the control room. No silo in real life would have a control centre for firing a rocket underground and definitely not under the rocket itself.

There is glass in the control room, but it gets broken by the tentacled monster. Anyways, the point is that the game created a realistic fiction surrounding the rocket test. It doesn't really matter that a real life underground base wouldn't do it (although I'm sure there have been tests conducted like this in buildings, so moving it underground isn't too far of a stretch), but the way it was setup was plausible. It was most definitely not a furnace/incinerator.

[Duoae]

Look i admit i was taking it slightly to extremes but that's only because the point was made that the realism of the game supposedly made it easier to become engrossed and lost in the world. While the above instance happened to give a good puzzle in the game (although there was no figuring out since it was a linear pathway) it would not occur in real life and neither would you have to activate oxygen and fuel to the rocket seens as they would use tanks instead.

My point was that realism is subjective and being able to be absorbed into a game is different for every person. I thought AvP was pretty crap, but AvP2 absorbed me completely. Reality in games is what is made by the developers, saying the game was more realistic is a moot point since all games are "realistic".

[Babe]

Cant believe Quake III didnt even get a detailed escription page. Man in its days, it used to be the king.

[PlayfulPuppy]

My point was that realism is subjective and being able to be absorbed into a game is different for every person. I thought AvP was pretty crap, but AvP2 absorbed me completely. Reality in games is what is made by the developers, saying the game was more realistic is a moot point since all games are "realistic".

Holy crap! I heart you, Duoae. I feel exactly the same about AvP2, especially because it was the first game to accurately reproduce the Aliens atmosphere of advanced technology under seige.

As for your comments on HLs level design, yet again I agree, I really prefer environments that I can relate to rather than generic labs and corridors. Duke3D still sticks in my mind as having some of the best level design, because they managed to form captivating gameplay around areas that I could see in my everyday life. They weren't warehouses with carefully stacked crates for cover and jumping puzzles, they were places. Banks, movie theatres, restraunts, city centers; and yet they still managed to organise these areas into ways that worked as a game.

It's not hard to make a warehouse level, a sewer level or a faceless military base. Most people don't know what they actually look like, so the designers are free to take liberties in the distribution of choke points and cover. There's very little imagination involved, and (For me) it's not compelling to walk through the same looking corridor 10 times in a row.

[Drazula]

The more and more I look at Valve games, the more I see "me too" gimmicks. They simply extrapolate on what is good in other games.

Half-Life took the interactivity of Duke 3 to the next level. The same way they took the Doom 3 physics and made it a gun. The same way they are stealing from Prey and making Portal.

Mimickry is the sincerest form of flattery. Duke 3 deserves some love.

[Lethe]

The same way they took the Doom 3 physics and made it a gun. .

+1, Hey troll, time to level up! :D

[X-Vector]

Going by that argument, Duke3D mimicked Dark Forces (http://www.geocities.com/darkforces_faq/dfhead.html)' additions to the Doom formula.

[PlayfulPuppy]

The more and more I look at Valve games, the more I see "me too" gimmicks. They simply extrapolate on what is good in other games.

I may not like HL1 as much as most people, but that's a pretty obvious troll. While I find the HL story to be a fairly direct rip of the Doom storyline, the rest of it has no more plaigarism than any other FPS out today.


Half-Life took the interactivity of Duke 3 to the next level.

Say what? Man, if you're going to troll, at least do a decent job. Duke3D had 10 times the interactivity of Half-Life; you could use a projecter, toilets, surveillance cameras, arcade machines, strippers and tonnes of ther stuff. In Half-Life the most you could do in it was use a soda machine and blow up a microwave. Oh, and flick light-switches.


The same way they took the Doom 3 physics and made it a gun.

Uh-huh. You mean that they weren't inspired by all the other titles that were flaunting physics at the time, such as the (Oh-no!) Unreal series? They were the ones that started the whole physics trend in FPSes, anyhow. Doom 3s physics were not only subpar (Even for when it was released), they were late to the party and underutilised.

Are you sure you're not confusing it with Doom 3 taking Half-Lifes physics gun? ;)


The same way they are stealing from Prey and making Portal.


... Except it's based off (Technically a sequel to) Narbacular Drop, a game made by Digipen students before Prey was released. Portal actually has the same developers as ND, it's just that they're now employees of Valve.

[Duoae]

Hey, give Draz a chance. He doesn't get time to post on here anymore. I used to see quite a few decent posts from him... but i guess now he has no outlet for his hatred of HL and so has to condense it down all into one post! :)

[ZuljinRaynor]

Uh-huh. You mean that they weren't inspired by all the other titles that were flaunting physics at the time, such as the (Oh-no!) Unreal series? They were the ones that started the whole physics trend in FPSes, anyhow. Doom 3s physics were not only subpar (Even for when it was released), they were late to the party and underutilised.
Hell no. Doom 3 had great physics... just had no real area to show it.


Are you sure you're not confusing it with Doom 3 taking Half-Lifes physics gun? ;)

I believe id when they say they already had the cvars in Doom 3.

[FireFly]

Hell no. Doom 3 had great physics... just had no real area to show it.
Doom 3's physics model is based on collisions, which means that if two objects are at rest and touching each other, and you try to push one into the other, no movement will result.

I believe id when they say they already had the cvars in Doom 3.
They had a cvar to pick up objects, but not one to apply a force to those objects.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Doom 3's physics model is based on collisions, which means that if two objects are at rest and touching each other, and you try to push one into the other, no movement will result.
Funny... I remember pushing things into each other and movement would occur.

[Duoae]

Yeah, it's basically the same physics standard as was seen in Fear.

[Spartan_234]

What is it about Quake that people love? The simple gameplay? I can get that from Doom and at least the levels and monsters interest me. I'd like a decent answer from a Quake fan too - because I'm interested in knowing.

The lightning-fast action, excellent level design, and creepy atmosphere are what make Quake so fun. When I first played Quake, the action in Doom and Duke Nukem 3D seemed to move along at the speed of a tractor by comparison.

[ZuljinRaynor]

The lightning-fast action, excellent level design, and creepy atmosphere are what make Quake so fun. When I first played Quake, the action in Doom and Duke Nukem 3D seemed to move along at the speed of a tractor by comparison.

When I played Quake (1)... I wanted to barf. It was just bad. Lighting-fast? I remember sluggish action from Quake 1.

[Phayzon]

When I played Quake (1)... I wanted to barf. It was just bad. Lighting-fast? I remember sluggish action from Quake 1.

Are we playing the same game here?

[YicklePigeon]

Yes he is Phayzon. I believe you're thinking speed in terms of frames per second, whereas Zuljin is thinking in terms of amount and speed of action. Very different things.

I remember, back in the day when I'd be playing Q1. I'd just come from playing Doom (very fast, very fun) to playing Q1's single player...and there would be about 1-3 enemies in a room that would easily be despatched. And then a little while walking around an empty area. Boring!

Regards,

Yickle.

[Spartan_234]

Yes he is Phayzon. I believe you're thinking speed in terms of frames per second, whereas Zuljin is thinking in terms of amount and speed of action. Very different things.

No, I did mean "amount and speed of action" when I said "lightning-fast".

[YicklePigeon]

Spartan: I'm specifically referring to Zuljin's statement as quoted by Phayzon and Phayzon's thinking. Not your statement quoted by Zuljin.

Regards,

Yickle.

[Phayzon]

Yes he is Phayzon. I believe you're thinking speed in terms of frames per second, whereas Zuljin is thinking in terms of amount and speed of action. Very different things.

I remember, back in the day when I'd be playing Q1. I'd just come from playing Doom (very fast, very fun) to playing Q1's single player...and there would be about 1-3 enemies in a room that would easily be despatched. And then a little while walking around an empty area. Boring!

Regards,

Yickle.

Truce. I feel the same way about Half-Life. :)

PS
I wasnt thinking about FPS

[Destroyer]

huh HL is #1 on the list. I dont know why but I couldnt get into that game much. HL2 though on the other hand I loved.

[YicklePigeon]

Truce. I feel the same way about Half-Life. :)

PS
I wasnt thinking about FPS

Pigeon perches corrected. :)

Regards,

Yickle.

[avatar_58]

Well heres how I see it: Doom was fast paced and full of monsters. It also had higher detailed 3D areas that were far more believable than Wolf3D or previous shooters could ever come up with.

Then Duke3D came out, and one-upped Doom in the realism of the environment. We were now in cities, shopping malls, space stations and restaurants. That was a major step up in my eyes. Not to mention the mass amount of detail put into that small resolution.

Then Quake - what do we get? Brown brick-like areas that made little sense, no coherrence to any of the levels and everything Duke had improved upon was nowhere to be seen. We get told "OMG 3D!!" and yet little else is shown. Why am I playing Quake? If I wanted that I would go back to a quicker game like Doom for fun. If I wanted innovation and believable locations I have Duk3D.

What did Quake add? Nothing, the levels made no sense and clearly were just slapped together to suit whatever you had to do. Oh heres a platform, go 3 rooms ahead, hit a switch and it lowers. Why? Is it a machine used for something? No, its just a brick that is there to block you. This is my beef with Quake, it had nothing at all to keep me playing. I admit it was pretty good in multiplayer, but what on earth did it add to the genre on whole in single player (argueably the reason we buy games at all?)

[Telee]

I was actually happy when I beat Quake - Right after I finished it, I immediately booted up Duke3D :p

[d3ad connection]

I have to agree - Quake 1 is boring.

(argueably the reason we buy games at all?)

Actually, I think thats why Quake was so successful, because of the multiplayer only.

[Krust]

I found Q1 pretty boring as well, I just couldn't get into that game. But nevertheless, it was the first game to actually use 3D, which was a step up the technology-ladder, wether you liked the game or not.

[FireFly]

Funny... I remember pushing things into each other and movement would occur.
They need to be stationary and touching, for there to be a problem. There's a thread on the issue, here:

http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=10063

Additionally, 'collisions' are resolved individually, so if you have a pile of bricks and you remove one from the bottom, the pile won't topple over.

[PlayfulPuppy]

They need to be stationary and touching, for there to be a problem. There's a thread on the issue, here:

http://www.doom3world.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=10063

Additionally, 'collisions' are resolved individually, so if you have a pile of bricks and you remove one from the bottom, the pile won't topple over.

That seems to be due to a lack of collision point retention. It's actually quite bizarre to watch; If you kill an enemy and he flops on to you, he'll stay in that position even if you walk away.

The objects seem to come to rest far too quickly and it also lacks velocity dampening, meaning objects can hit obscenely high speeds very quickly.

[Gibaholic]

Quake.. did sort of have good multiplayer

QuakeWorld that is...

besides the solid multiplayer, it had an awesome mod community which still remains today. Its singleplayer was good, nothing bad imo. Whereas Duke3D's engine was, how Carmack put it "held together with bubblegum"

[TerminX]

Whereas Duke3D's engine was, how Carmack put it "held together with bubblegum"
Uh, no. Carmack always said that Build was very good. It's the game code itself that's held together with gum, not the engine.

[avatar_58]

Whereas Duke3D's engine was, how Carmack put it "held together with bubblegum"

Engine technology affects enjoyment of a game? Sorry but if we look back through the ages the most genre defining games were usually on shaky tech.

[Gibaholic]

Engine technology affects enjoyment of a game? Sorry but if we look back through the ages the most genre defining games were usually on shaky tech.

Well, the netcode did affect the enjoyment of its multiplayer.

[Destroyer]

wait it said that wolf3d didnt have textures. but what were all those pics on the walls then?

[Duoae]

wait it said that wolf3d didnt have textures. but what were all those pics on the walls then?

Your mind filling in the blanks. ;)

[ZuljinRaynor]

Wolf3d had textures and Wolf3d mods have textured floors and ceilings now. OMFG!

[Drazula]

I may not like HL1 as much as most people, but that's a pretty obvious troll. While I find the HL story to be a fairly direct rip of the Doom storyline, the rest of it has no more plaigarism than any other FPS out today.
Troll... why? The interactivity in HL taken directly from Duke 3D. Valve liked it, they used it.


Say what? Man, if you're going to troll, at least do a decent job. Duke3D had 10 times the interactivity of Half-Life; you could use a projecter, toilets, surveillance cameras, arcade machines, strippers and tonnes of ther stuff. In Half-Life the most you could do in it was use a soda machine and blow up a microwave. Oh, and flick light-switches.
Gee, that sounds like a troll. ;) In the article, under "notable innovations" is listed "Things to interact with besides doors, leading to great problem solving levels".

Isn't the interactivity in HL just a "me too" of Duke 3D at best? Yet the article wants to give HL credit for interactivity. I think on this we agree more than we disagree.

I will also add that HL did nothing for multiplayer, even though the article authors want to claim otherwise.

Uh-huh. You mean that they weren't inspired by all the other titles that were flaunting physics at the time, such as the (Oh-no!) Unreal series? They were the ones that started the whole physics trend in FPSes, anyhow. Doom 3s physics were not only subpar (Even for when it was released), they were late to the party and underutilised.

Are you sure you're not confusing it with Doom 3 taking Half-Lifes physics gun? ;)
They saw Doom 3 physics and made it into a gun. Just like they did with Prey's portals. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But Valve did not pioneer any of the techniques they used. They used existing techniques in innovative ways.


... Except it's based off (Technically a sequel to) Narbacular Drop, a game made by Digipen students before Prey was released. Portal actually has the same developers as ND, it's just that they're now employees of Valve.
You can call a snake a rose, and it will still bite you. Portals were a proven technique by Prey.

Seems Valve's current approach is take an innovation and make it a gun. I am waiting for Crysis to be released so Valve can create an AI gun. Then I can fire it at all of their idiot NPCs. :)

[ZuljinRaynor]

Crysis AI... hope it's acutally good and not like FarCry's. The only game I can think of with good AI is FEAR...

[Drazula]

A few other things they credit to HL:

- A story that was experienced in play rather than told to you
- A sense of immersion that still seems hard to match today

These belong to System Shock and System Shock 2 respectively.

Which brings up another question: why did System Shock and System Shock 2 fail commercially? The only other company mentioned in this list more than once is id: Doom (which should have been #1, whatta joke that it is honorable mention), Quake and Wolfenstein.

Oh and there is one more thing we can credit Valve for: the demise of PC gaming because of Steam ...

[Odin]

I would completely agree with your post if you didn't make this statement which almost fits in trolling category.

I know this post was made a while ago, but HOLY SHIT. That's NOT TROLLING. Trolling would be when someone totally disses a popular figure when he dies in his mourning thread. Not what TerminX posted.

Also that article totally removes any respect I will ever have for Gama Sutra.

[Phayzon]

Duke3D shouldve been on the list, not becuase of interactivity blah blah blah, but jumping... :D

EDIT: Nevermind, you can jump in Hexen. Crouching then, and look up/down without distorting the image (as much as Heretic).

EDIT2:
http://c0venant.net/imagenes/troll-dontfeed.jpg

[X-Vector]

Duke3D shouldve been on the list, not becuase of interactivity blah blah blah, but jumping... :D

EDIT: Nevermind, you can jump in Hexen. Crouching then, and look up/down without distorting the image (as much as Heretic).


Dark Forces had all this before Duke3D (and Hexen).

Interactivity, jumping, crouching, looking up and down - D3D was just a "me too" game jumping on the DF bandwagon, right?

[avatar_58]

Which brings up another question: why did System Shock and System Shock 2 fail commercially?

As someone who is just playing SS1 for the first time after all these years I'm asking the very same question. What did they do wrong?

It's like everything thats been credited to the "big players" of the old days is a farce and they simply copied off others. Carmack himself stated Ultima Underworld's tech demo forced him to try to do better with Wolf3D. Come on! :(

Its funny - if UUW and System Shock had done better we might be playing more in depth games than we are today.

[Phayzon]

Dark Forces had all this before Duke3D (and Hexen).


Oh yeah :doh:

[Kristian Joensen]

Avatar_58, how are the controlls in SS and SS2 ? Are the games easy to get into ? Easily accessible ?

[avatar_58]

Avatar_58, how are the controlls in SS and SS2 ? Are the games easy to get into ? Easily accessible ?

That depends on the person playing. I think the controls and complexity of the UI are what turns off some players. If you are willing to experiment with it and put up with non-standard controls then its really not that bad. :)

(SS1 btw, I haven't played the second one yet)

[Damien_Azreal]

Well, you can rebind controls in SS2 so it's much more comforitable. SS2 feels like a mix of Thief (it uses the same engine) and Deus Ex (gameplay mechanics wise).

It's pretty easy to get used to, and the interface is very easy to understand.

As someone who is just playing SS1 for the first time after all these years I'm asking the very same question. What did they do wrong?

Advertising and promotion.
System Shock wasn't promoted hardly at all, and SS2 had a few adds out but a lot of people hadn't played the first game and were very cautious about picking up the sequal. Sad but true, they had a shit publisher.

Had SS and SS2 been released by say GT Interactive the games might've recieved a lot more love.

[FireFly]

Troll... why? The interactivity in HL taken directly from Duke 3D. Valve liked it, they used it.
You said originally: "The more and more I look at Valve games, the more I see "me too" gimmicks." Do you not see the implicit criticism, the judgment that Valve merely copy features from other developers without adding to them in a meaningful way? There is no other use for the word gimmick.

Now you say that: "They used existing techniques in innovative ways", that is instead of simply throwing in "me too" gimmicks, they developed existing features in new and innovative directions. I don't think you'll find any disagreement from us there.

And in fact Valve originally planned for physics based gameplay back in 1999 when they were brainstorming ideas for Half-Life 2:

"Valve also wanted to bring the world to life. Interactive environments have long been synonymous with first-person shooters, but in the past the interactivity has been limited to flushing a toilet or getting a can of Coke out of an in-game vending machine. Valve wondered if it could create a world that was even more interactive. "The inherent promise of games is that you are an agent in this world and you can affect things," Newell says. So an idea went up on the whiteboard: What if Half-Life 2 used physics, AI, and game design to push the boundaries of interactivity? The team imagined scenarios like letting a player pick up a radiator in an apartment building to use as a shield against an enemy."

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6112889/p-3.html

That's how Valve's creative process works. They form themselves into cabals, throw ideas about, and then, in teams, investigate those ideas. So to say that Valve simply copy from other developers or that their development philosophy is based on refining old ideas and never pioneering new ones, is a massive simplification.

From the same period:

"Eventually the team crystallized their thoughts around the key concept of making both the characters and the world in Half-Life 2 more believable and interactive. The original Half-Life was heralded for many things, but players particularly appreciated the characters and storyline. "It sounds really goofy, but what we wanted to do was broaden the emotional palette in games," Newell says. "We wanted to try and create characters that mattered and have the player feel a strong attachment to them."

Here Valve were aiming to do something that hadn't been done before, to create fully lifelike characters that the player could really associate with, really feel attached to. From this period onward Valve began to investigate human physiology and psychology, talking to experts in the field, and trying to get an understanding of what they'd need to do - how they could simulate speech, articulate complex facial expressions, realistically model muscle groups. This was pioneering work at the cutting edge of the industry. It developed from Valve's own personal convictions on what games should represent, convictions that were at odds with what the rest of the gaming industry was doing.

Valve have very specific aims, and if existing work has been done to achieve those aims, they're happy to use it, but if not, then they're prepared to blaze their own trail. The style of storytelling they've focused on, which involves a lack of explicit narration and exposition, is very unique for an FPS. Developers conventionally try to enhance their story by adding more of it. Valve on the other hand add by taking away.

I will also add that HL did nothing for multiplayer, even though the article authors want to claim otherwise.
It provided the basis for the most popular online game today.

They saw Doom 3 physics and made it into a gun. Just like they did with Prey's portals. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. But Valve did not pioneer any of the techniques they used. They used existing techniques in innovative ways.
They'd planned on including physics right from the start, and in fact the first physics engine they licensed was Ipion, produced by a small German company of the same name who were acquired by Havok in June of 2000.

"Originally we licensed physics from ipion which was later acquired by Havok. Over the course of HL2's development much of the code was upgraded by Havok as they continued development of physics technology. We also added our own physics technology to the codebase. So it's a hybrid codebase that's seen lots of development over the years. "

http://www.chatbear.com/board.plm?a=viewthread&t=825,1122025679,18198&b=4991&v=flatold#3

"Earlier this month, an Irish developer of toolkits for PC and console games called Havok acquired Munich-based Ipion for USD 1.5 million."

http://www.nsd.ie/htm/news/story.php3?id=1089

Well, Doom 3 was announced in that month, and it was only in Febuary 2001 that the game was first shown, in its embryonic stages, to the MacWorld audience. I can't remember when Doom 3's physics engine was first demonstrated to developers, but at the beginning all that was promised was that sometimes boxes would fall off shelves! That was the source of the physics hype - minor, incidental, physical interactivity. Valve had always planned to go a lot further.

But if you want to look at why Valve decided to make physical interaction such an integral part of the experience, you need to go back to their design methodology:

"The physics festered their way into the game through the results of our play testing (which we do for months before any QA testing begins). Ravenholm, the original home of the 'physics part of the game' occurred a bit later in earlier versions, and it was the only place you had the gravity gun. But, as more and more testers told us this was gameplay they enjoyed (and we could start eliminating fears of being compared to bad experiments with physics in games), the closer Ravenholm moved to the start."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/news_story.php(que)id=127079

So the physics weren't originally a primary focus of the game, a bit like in Doom 3, but what happened is that Valve realised over time that gamers responded to physics based gameplay, they liked it. This was an organic process and had nothing to do with what id was doing or what Crytek was doing or what Epic was doing.

You can call a snake a rose, and it will still bite you. Portals were a proven technique by Prey.
The Gravity Gun wasn't and the portal based puzzles that make up Portal still aren't. What matters is the finished proposition. Did Far Cry invent open ended gameplay? Did id invent the concept of lighting as a source of tension?

A few other things they credit to HL:

- A story that was experienced in play rather than told to you
- A sense of immersion that still seems hard to match today.

These belong to System Shock and System Shock 2 respectively.

From the article:

"System Shock 2 reached a level of immersion and involvement with your environment that has never been matched before or since. Some people might disqualify it from the genre of strict FPS, since the action is less frantic and has a more cerebral slant than games in the traditions of id or Valve or Bungie or Epic, but if the first person perspective's great strength is its ability to transport the player into the role of the hero, to put you in their place, then no game does this better than SS2"

Oh and there is one more thing we can credit Valve for: the demise of PC gaming because of Steam ...
How can you credit someone for something that hasn't happened?

[Damien_Azreal]

Wow... you have more patience than me man. I couldn't make a post like that even if I felt compelled to. :D

[FireFly]

So you're saying you'd like to be obsessive? ;)

[Duoae]

Wow, credit to the man.... all's we need now is a person bashing Halo's challenge/AI/replayability aspect and you're done!

:)

[Damien_Azreal]

So you're saying you'd like to be obsessive? ;)

Why not. :D

[widowmaker]

SNNNNNNNIp

Man how do I respond with out writing a dozen or so pages. Hmmm
Steam was a good idea that would have worked wonders in a perfect world, but our world is not perfect.

I bothers me that Doom gets only an honorable mention while they award HL top honors. Doom did more for FPS than all of the games since. It kicked open the door and made the world take note that the time of the FPS was at hand.

My list of most influencial FPS:
Doom - It all begins here.
Quake - First truely 3D FPS
Tribes - Most complete FPS MP Online Game. UT is still playing catchup.
Duke3D - Most interaction, Most identifyable main character. Have you had as much fun playing a FPS since? I didn't think so.
GoldenEye - Set the standard for Console Shooters.

I also have the feeling that Counter Strike is being rolled up in the decision making for HL as to what it is contributing. But hey CS was a Mod and although it carried HL for years it did not ship as part of HL.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Wolfenstein 3D is more influential than Doom.

[FireFly]

Steam was a good idea that would have worked wonders in a perfect world, but our world is not perfect.
Not sure if that was a response to me, but I was talking about the original Half-Life, not its sequel or Valve's current platform - Steam.

I also have the feeling that Counter Strike is being rolled up in the decision making for HL as to what it is contributing. But hey CS was a Mod and although it carried HL for years it did not ship as part of HL.
Well the only comment on Half-Life's multiplayer is that it had: "a very user friendly online multiplayer interface", and that's a reference to the platform/engine, not the game.

However the choices are a result of user voting, not editor consensus, so we don't know the exact criteria used.

[Drazula]

You said originally: "The more and more I look at Valve games, the more I see "me too" gimmicks." Do you not see the implicit criticism, the judgment that Valve merely copy features from other developers without adding to them in a meaningful way?
There are different types of gimmicks. What I meant was that it was a feature I did not want to see in every FPS. The physics gun is a gimmick. The rocket launcher is not.

Now you say that: "They used existing techniques in innovative ways", that is instead of simply throwing in "me too" gimmicks,
No, it is for my own clarification. I had for some time viewed Valve as pioneers, but they are not. They use what is already available.

That's how Valve's creative process works. They form themselves into cabals, throw ideas about, and then, in teams, investigate those ideas. So to say that Valve simply copy from other developers or that their development philosophy is based on refining old ideas and never pioneering new ones, is a massive simplification.
Gee, how convenient they NOW talk about that. I'm sure a few years from now, they will talk about their Portal discussions of 2001. :rolleyes:


So the physics weren't originally a primary focus of the game, a bit like in Doom 3, but what happened is that Valve realised over time that gamers responded to physics based gameplay, they liked it. This was an organic process and had nothing to do with what id was doing or what Crytek was doing or what Epic was doing.
The Gravity Gun wasn't and the portal based puzzles that make up Portal still aren't. What matters is the finished proposition. Did Far Cry invent open ended gameplay? Did id invent the concept of lighting as a source of tension?
"Having physics" so you can pick up a radiator (btw, that is NOT physics) is not the same as filling a world with physics objects.


From the article:

"System Shock 2 reached a level of immersion and involvement with your environment that has never been matched before or since. Some people might disqualify it from the genre of strict FPS, since the action is less frantic and has a more cerebral slant than games in the traditions of id or Valve or Bungie or Epic, but if the first person perspective's great strength is its ability to transport the player into the role of the hero, to put you in their place, then no game does this better than SS2"
Exactly! So why did they try to give HL credit for that?

How can you credit someone for something that hasn't happened?
Unfortunately, it looks like PCs are going to be the home for episodic POS's.

[ZuljinRaynor]

I haven't seen much episodic POS yet... seriously ATM none.

[avatar_58]

GoldenEye - Set the standard for Console Shooters.


I agree Goldeneye did quite a bit, but having replayed Turok after all these years and learning it came out FIRST I have to say it should be mentioned. Turok created the "c-buttons/joystick" control method (later used as a mode in goldeneye and every other n64 shooter) and it also did a few other things credited to Goldeneye.

I would personally say Goldeneye was the first universally popular console FPS. Also the mission based SP, addicting game mechanics for multiplayer and the 'hold R to aim' system that to this day has not been reimplemented properly (PD uses it too). Time Splitters tried, and failed miserabley.

[0marTheZealot]

Gee, how convenient they NOW talk about that. I'm sure a few years from now, they will talk about their Portal discussions of 2001. :rolleyes:



This Portal vs Prey nonsense is getting on my nerves now. Prey was first revealed in what, 2004? Valve had already acquired the Narbuclar Drop team back in 2001. It's a wholly stupid discussion anyways, games borrow from each other all the time. Gameplay mechanics, technology, story ideas, etc etc.

Prey's use of portals were just as doors anyways, there were ZERO uses of portals in Prey that related to gameplay or puzzle-solving. Eventually, someone was going to take that idea and expand on it. Valve just used Prey's time in the spotlight to highlight their own imagining of portal gameplay.



Unfortunately, it looks like PCs are going to be the home for episodic POS's.


More games, faster. How can anyone be against this? EP2 has technological improvements that put it on par with games coming out this year/early next year. Anyone that has watched the gameplay videos can plainly see that. It does not look like a 2004 or 2005 game. It has new content, new plotlines, new weaponry. It is, by all accounts, a new game. It just so happens to be a bit shorter and cheaper than full-price games. Even so, Prey was a full-price game, and for many people, it was only slightly longer than Ep1 or Sin:Emergence.

Anyways, the full development cycle is not going away either. There will still be games that take 4-6 years to come out and be able to beat in a day or two of gaming. Prey is a perfect example of this; I beat it in barely 6 hours (5:47) and so did many other people. 5 years of development and scarely more gameplay to show than Ep1 (4 or so hours first time through) or Sin:E (4, maybe 5 hours first time through). In fact, the last FPSes that took quite a while to beat was probably HL2 or Doom3. Both of those games are a minimum of 12 hours apiece the first time through.

Episodic development cycle just aims to reduce the lag-time between releases. It means more games for the consumer and the departure from 4-6 year development cycle for developers.

[FireFly]

There are different types of gimmicks. What I meant was that it was a feature I did not want to see in every FPS. The physics gun is a gimmick. The rocket launcher is not.
Then you're not discussing Valve products, but the elements used in those products and how they'd be suited to the industry in general.

No, it is for my own clarification. I had for some time viewed Valve as pioneers, but they are not. They use what is already available.
What would you define as pioneering? To me, "using existing techniques in innovative ways" is pioneering, because it's breaking new ground, it's opening up new space for future development. In the case of Portal, the concept isn't new, but the way in which it's used creates a completely new set of gameplay dynamics which tests the player in a unique way (developing his spatial awareness and visualisation skills).

Before Far Cry, Operation Flashpoint provided freeform FPS gameplay, allowing the player access to an entire island. All Far Cry did was take that gameplay and put it in a conventional narrative and FPS structure. So would you say Far Cry wasn't pioneering?

Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring Valve's character system, which introduced several new concepts into the FPS genre, like realistically simulated musculature.

Gee, how convenient they NOW talk about that.
If you want to dismiss that comment then fine, but the fact of the matter is Valve started integrating physics into Half-Life 2 before Doom 3 was even announced. In mid-2001 all they were doing was experimenting with this technology, experimenting with the Gravity Gun:

"The first big breakthrough came when the physics started working inside the game environment. All of a sudden, static game levels became virtual playgrounds where the team could create objects with mass and have forces act on them. Some of the designers even developed a minigame called Zombie Basketball, where they used a physics-manipulator gun to throw zombies through hoops and get them to land in trash bins."

"Still, designers like Guthrie thought that allowing players to manipulate objects would help the designers invent new gameplay paradigms. "I imagined throwing saw blades to cut enemies in half, tossing a paint can against a wall and seeing it splatter," he says. "It was going to add another whole layer to the gameplay. It was going to give us what we needed to differentiate this game from Half-Life."

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6112889/p-7.html?sid=6112889&page=7

Now, I've checked, and Doom 3 wasn't shown off till E3 2002. From April 2002: "Of course, id hasn't released any information about the game, so speculation is just that, speculation."

http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/20119/

And even when it was shown off, all that was demonstrated was that boxes could fall off shelves, functionality that would have been present even in the Ipion physics SDK, let alone the Havok SDK.

I'm sure a few years from now, they will talk about their Portal discussions of 2001. :rolleyes:
Why would they need to? They hired the Narbacular Drop team before the current version of Prey was announced. News post from April 12th, 2005:

"Life is really strange sometimes. Like sometimes you make a kick ass student game project. And then the heads of Valve might see that project. And before you know it, they want to contract your entire team to make that game in the Source Engine.

Has that every happened to you?

Well it happened to us. And even though Dave had predicted (8 months ago) that this EXACT thing would happen, we were all left in complete shock! Gabe Newell was impressed by our game and personally extended our entire team a generous offer. Needless to say we are ecstatic! "

http://www.nuclearmonkeysoftware.com/narbaculardrop.html?news.html

(3rd news page)

"Having physics" so you can pick up a radiator (btw, that is NOT physics) is not the same as filling a world with physics objects.
Why are you referencing that single comment and not the content of my quote, which talked about the Gravity Gun? How can the Gravity Gun function if there are no objects to throw? From the interview I referenced:

"Ravenholm and the gravity gun co-existed in our minds for a long time. The saw blades didn't appear until we'd spent some time in Ravenholm looking for things to throw..."

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=127079

So during their experimentation period they were concerned precisely with "filling a world with physics objects". They did this independently of what id was doing, and in fact id was focused on the opposite - selectively applying physics in a way that wouldn't affect the gameplay. The only shared thread is that they both used a physics engine, but Valve licensed its physics engine before Doom 3 was even announced, and while Doom 3 was only showing off very basic physical interactivity, Valve were working towards much more complex physics based gameplay. What you see in the E3 trailers was actually made in summer 2002.

Exactly! So why did they try to give HL credit for that?
Who is they? The choices in the article are a result of user voting, not editor consensus, and what you're picking out is merely a comment from an anonymous user that they decided to include.

Unfortunately, it looks like PCs are going to be the home for episodic POS's.
So you're saying that because episodes exist, the PC gaming industry is dead? The only mainstream developers who have adopted episodes are Valve and Ritual (and they had no other choice). Everyone else is continuing as usual. And frankly I see no reason why the two formats can't co-exist.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Firefly, I salute you for even bothering to reply to Draz. :salute:

[avatar_58]

Please guys, can we not make this an HL2 VS the world thread? HL2 is still new, it doesn't need to be brought into a discussion about how older games shaped the future.

(I'm not looking forward to that either, because if you ask me people are too loyal to doom3/hl2/farcry/insert post 2003 title here)

[Drazula]

Prey's use of portals were just as doors anyways, there were ZERO uses of portals in Prey that related to gameplay or puzzle-solving.
You obviously didn't play Prey. There were many portal related puzzles.

More games, faster. How can anyone be against this?
The same way I oppose Madden 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007. No change in graphics, no change in gameplay. Just patch the bugs and repackage. They are essentially charging for mods.

EP2 has technological improvements that put it on par with games coming out this year/early next year.
I find that hard to believe when EP1 was barely on a 2003 level. THEY STILL HAVE SHADOW PROBLEMS!!!! Un-freaking-believable.


Anyone that has watched the gameplay videos can plainly see that. It does not look like a 2004 or 2005 game.
I've seen it. Don't know what you are looking at. Still looks 2003 to me.

It has new content, new plotlines, new weaponry.
How does any of that add up to new tech?

Episodic development cycle just aims to reduce the lag-time between releases. It means more games for the consumer and the departure from 4-6 year development cycle for developers.
It means they can charge for a mod. Play "They Hunger" and EP1. There was way more new stuff in "They Hunger" than EP1. So tell me which one SHOULD be paid for. ........ Right. Whatta rip-off.

.

As for older games. There are some FPS qualities I wish impacted the future more:

- Tron 2.0's active defense system. Too bad no one has tried it since.
- Duke 3D's humor. Why is everything so serious? They're games!!!
- Far-Cry's open level design. Why are we still being funnelled? Hopefully, Crysis and Quake Wars will kill this once and for all.
- Serious Sam's memorable villains. Even the common enemies were memorable! C'mon developers. Put some character in your monsters!

[0marTheZealot]

You obviously didn't play Prey. There were many portal related puzzles.


Nope. The most Prey had regarding Portal puzzles was gravity switching so that you fall into the portal. It's no more different than finding that breakable vent or collapsable roof in any other game.

[FireFly]

I've seen it. Don't know what you are looking at. Still looks 2003 to me.
If you look at this video, you can see their new dynamic lighting system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIGlcntslC4

The flashlight casts realistic soft shadows. And before you say "Valve have finally reached 2004 level tech", consider that the flashlight in Doom 3 engined games doesn't even cast shadows properly, and if it did, they would still be hard edged.

Now Valve's new lighting system hasn't been rolled out yet across the game, but in the teaser trailer you can see the new enemy type casting realistic soft shadows.

So is Valve's engine suddenly catapulted from 2003 to 2005 class, just because of the additions to the lighting system?

[Drazula]

If you look at this video, you can see their new dynamic lighting system:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIGlcntslC4
That's worth PAYING for???

Someone, anyone, answer the question: which has more new content, They Hunger or HL2 "Paying for a Mod" Episodes?

I rest my case!

What is going to be really funny is after all the nitwits shell out $75-100 (or in the case of Sin, $150-$180) for all the episodes, they will be released on one DVD for $35. Still think you won't feel ripped off? LOL!

[avatar_58]

Did you buy ROE Draz? Frankly its no different than these, as they are billed as episodic expansions not technically 'HL3'.

[FireFly]

That's worth PAYING for???
And that's relevant to the discussion on Episode 2's tech level, how?

But to answer your question, value is in the eye of the beholder, and the quality of the experience isn't a measure of the amount of content.


What is going to be really funny is after all the nitwits shell out $75-100 (or in the case of Sin, $150-$180) for all the episodes, they will be released on one DVD for $35. Still think you won't feel ripped off? LOL!
Do you feel ripped off when a game you bought for $50 is selling for $10 several years later?

[PlayfulPuppy]

That's worth PAYING for???

That's a nice backhanded dodge there, Draz.

Just to keep the memory fresh, that was in response to:

I find that hard to believe when EP1 was barely on a 2003 level. THEY STILL HAVE SHADOW PROBLEMS!!!! Un-freaking-believable.


Someone, anyone, answer the question: which has more new content, They Hunger or HL2 "Paying for a Mod" Episodes?


HL2:E, easily. You seem to have very little concept of what 'content' really is.


What is going to be really funny is after all the nitwits shell out $75-100 (or in the case of Sin, $150-$180) for all the episodes, they will be released on one DVD for $35. Still think you won't feel ripped off? LOL!

http://homepage1.nifty.com/ghostrider/quakemp1.jpg

http://homepage1.nifty.com/ghostrider/quakemp2.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004TPGN.02._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Yeah, I can hardly believe it either.

[avatar_58]

By the way Draz - $75-100 would mean 4-5 episodes of HL2 correct? Which, at about 4 hours each, would land play time at 16-20 hours right? Plus the bonuses such as portal and TF2? I don't know about you, but I spent the same amount of money on Prey and only got 6 hours of gameplay.

[Drazula]

That's a nice backhanded dodge there, Draz.

Just to keep the memory fresh, that was in response to:
Non-sequitor. Reread. You are mixing HL:EP1 and HL:EP2.
Someone, anyone, answer the question: which has more new content, They Hunger or HL2 "Paying for a Mod" Episodes?
HL2:E, easily. You seem to have very little concept of what 'content' really is.
Really? You mean like new models, new enemies, new weapons, new ideas? They were very obvious in "They Hunger", where were they in HL2:EP1?

http://homepage1.nifty.com/ghostrider/quakemp1.jpg

http://homepage1.nifty.com/ghostrider/quakemp2.jpg

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004TPGN.02._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Yeah, I can hardly believe it either.
Well, at least you are on the right track. Expansion packs don't pretend to be new games the way HL2:EP does. Even so, these expansion packs had new models, new weapons and new enemies as do nearly all expansion packs. HL2:EP1 didn't have anything new in these areas.

Thanks! You just helped me prove HL2:EPs are LESS than expansions. The only thing I know less than expansions are MODs and rip-offs. We haven't played the rip-off Portal yet (snicker), so HL2:EPs must be a mod! Or less, when compared to quality mods like They-Hunger.

[Mongorian]

The biggest difference is that Mission packs and expansions require the full game to play. The half-life episodes are completely self contained.

[FireFly]

Non-sequitor. Reread. You are mixing HL:EP1 and HL:EP2.
You said: "I find that hard to believe" in reference to the idea of new tech improvements and:

"I've seen it. Don't know what you are looking at. Still looks 2003 to me."

Well, at least you are on the right track. Expansion packs don't pretend to be new games the way HL2:EP does.
Half-Life 2 doesn't pretend to be an entirely new game - it's an episode, i.e something in between an expansion pack and a sequel. Expansion packs throw many new elements at the player, but lack story and game continuity. Episodes on the other hand, are a direct continuation of the original game and gradually diverge from it, adding new elements slowly but ensuring that those elements are fully taken advantage of.

Even so, these expansion packs had new models, new weapons and new enemies as do nearly all expansion packs. HL2:EP1 didn't have anything new in these areas.
It makes up for that by having new situations, new scenarios, new challenges, a new presentation. To illustrate: the first level of the game focuses on scripted sequences and is much more ambitious than Half-Life 2 in this regard, with the car and train 'rides', the Gravity Gun test, the glimpse of the Combine advisor, the integration of Dog, even the crashing strider and 'vortex' walkway. The execution is much improved over Half-Life 2 and characters (in this case Alyx and Dog) are more integrated into the world.

Not only that but the previous 'follow-the-pathway' method of advancement is replaced by a more puzzle based approach, with the player actually being rewarded for progression.

In the second level, rather than being empowered, the player is reduced in stature. He's forced to conserve ammunition, and his survival depends on his ability to work with Alyx, highlighting enemies for her to attack, and dealing with the new zombie threat. So suddenly good hand eye co-ordination isn't enough because the player doesn't have enough ammunition the first place, and therefore his survival depends his situational awareness and resource management: dealing with a depleting flashlight, using ammunition effectively, working around Alyx, keeping the new zombies at bay.

So again, an entirely new challenge is presented to the player, and that's to say nothing for the Antlion sections, which completely overwhelm him, uniquely for a Valve game. This kind of level-to-level diversity and ambition isn't found in mods and Valve spent a huge amount of time even getting Alyx to navigate the levels properly and be effective in combat.

Equally expansion packs are focused on adding new elements in a new context, not building on an existing plotline with completely new challenges that can restrict as well as empower the player. I think the fact that expansion packs throw in so many new elements actually limits what they can achieve, limits how well they can delelop those elements. On the other hand Valve take what they do have and iterate it to perfection. The Rollermine becomes a new ability, the Antlion becomes a new enemy, Alyx's role changes…

Thanks! You just helped me prove HL2:EPs are LESS than expansions. The only thing I know less than expansions are MODs and rip-offs. We haven't played the rip-off Portal yet (snicker), so HL2:EPs must be a mod! Or less, when compared to quality mods like They-Hunger.
So you're saying that anything that doesn't have X amount of new enemies/weapons shouldn't be released, no matter how creative, how diverse, how well executed and balanced it may be. The implication therefore is that the quality of the experience doesn't matter!

Instead all that matters how the game stacks up according to an arbitrary scale of your own devising, based on how many new weapons or enemies there are. So for example, Episode 2 includes new enemies, and at least one new vehicle and weapon. But I'm sure you're going to tell us, after looking at your magic scale, that it isn't enough.

[ZuljinRaynor]

Erm, Half-Life 2: Episodes are expansion packs... they even said it somewhere I believe.

[avatar_58]

Well, at least you are on the right track. Expansion packs don't pretend to be new games the way HL2:EP does. Even so, these expansion packs had new models, new weapons and new enemies as do nearly all expansion packs. HL2:EP1 didn't have anything new in these areas.


Thats funny, I don't recall ever being in a hospital in HL2, nor do I remember zombines being seen. So what do you happen to call expansions for games that DON'T add monsters or textures? Many older games did it all the time, some even had expansions with less than an hour of playtime.

[FireFly]

Erm, Half-Life 2: Episodes are expansion packs... they even said it somewhere I believe.
Valve thinks of them as them episodes, and the reason they changed the name from Aftermath from Episode 1 was to communicate that. In any case, the three episodes form part of an overall story arc, so they're very different from expansion packs, and Valve hope to continue the series in episodic format after the first trilogy.

It's really just semantics though, because what Valve is doing with episodes is unique.

[avatar_58]

It's really just semantics though, because what Valve is doing with episodes is unique.

Technically its not different than the Commander Keen games. They were sold seperately and contained barely any differences besides levels. Funny, its okay to do back then but not now?

You'll mention Episode 4-6 right? Well who's to say HL2's episodes won't grow in tech sometime in the future? Who's to say Episode 5,6,7 or whatever will even be on the source engine as we know? Seems to me its just assumptions.

[FireFly]

Well Valve have committed to adding a major new piece of tech (or several) for every episode. However there could be a larger gap between the first and second trilogies yes, and perhaps the addition of many new gameplay elements to act as a fresh 'platform' for the next 3 episodes.

For example, Valve plan on adding the portal launcher at some point, and considering the gameplay possibilities it offers, it would make more sense to save it for the next trilogy.

[Drazula]

It makes up for that by having new situations, new scenarios, new challenges, a new presentation.
You just described a new map with cutscenes. Yippeee?! Something any decent mod creator could do.


So you're saying that anything that doesn't have X amount of new enemies/weapons shouldn't be released, no matter how creative, how diverse, how well executed and balanced it may be. The implication therefore is that the quality of the experience doesn't matter!
No, I'm saying call it HL2 Mod 1. But they are not supposed to be modders are they. Yet it turns out the best thing Valve has ever produced came from mods.

Stop pretending Valve did something good. They are milking a cash cow and in the process moving people farther and farther away from PC gaming. They are selling, what Neil Menke (creator of They Hunger) did better for free.

[Joe Siegler]

Stop pretending Valve did something good. They are milking a cash cow and in the process moving people farther and farther away from PC gaming. They are selling, what Neil Menke (creator of They Hunger) did better for free.

Hmmm. Virtually the entire gaming industry praises Valve for their work, and the overhwelming majority of gamers do. Drazula does not.

I wonder who is most likely right here.

[FireFly]

You just described a new map with cutscenes. Yippeee?! Something any decent mod creator could do.
And with regard to your requirements I can say: "you just described a new map with some new weapons and enemies. Something any decent mod creator could do."

Does it matter that you'd need a professional animator, and actors, and voice actors to pull off the 'cutscenes'? Does it matter that you'd need several game designers working with a QA team to properly develop the new gameplay features (without the extensive testing, Episode 1 would be a shadow of its current self)? Does it matter that a dedicated team of programmers would have to spend months working through the navigation and A.I systems? Does it matter that you'd need dedicated writers to handle the dialogue (and work it in with the scripting system)?

Because if it doesn't, then a mod team could do anything.

No, I'm saying call it HL2 Mod 1.
As a name that's not any clearer than Half-Life 2: Episode 1.

But they are not supposed to be modders are they.
They're supposed to provide us with an extremely high quality FPS experience. If they do that then they've achieved their aim. I don't see why it matters how many weapons or enemies they add, if the experience as a whole is kept fresh.

I thought Alyx's interaction, the use of in-game cutscenes (which hasn't been matched by another FPS, let alone another mod), the new gameplay mechanics and so on, all broke new ground and pushed the genre forward. So I got plenty of "new stuff" for my money, and see no reason to suggest that one type of new stuff is OK - "new weapons/enemies" while another type isn't - new "gameplay scenarios". Both can be created by mods, and I think it's arguably harder to create new gameplay successfully than is to create new content.

In fact mods focus primarily on creating new content as a means to attract interest –"look at these cool new weapon renders and models". That's their bread and butter. Gameplay on the other hand is a lot tougher and while there are tons of mod teams that could create new weapons and enemies for Half-Life 2, I’d bet very few could pull off anything like what Valve did with Alyx in Episode 1.

Yet it turns out the best thing Valve has ever produced came from mods.
But that's subjective.

Stop pretending Valve did something good. They are milking a cash cow and in the process moving people farther and farther away from PC gaming. They are selling, what Neil Menke (creator of They Hunger) did better for free.
So because you don't appreciate the value in what they're selling, nobody else should either? I think in its own way (they're completely different experiences) Episode 1 is a good deal better than They Hunger or any other SP mod. It breaks new ground - it does things that no FPS or mod has done, so why shouldn't that be part of the value? It's a huge part of the value for me.

It seems that you played Episode 1, didn't like it, and because of that you now think it represents poor value for money for other people. Because you feel a release should have new weapons, everyone else should feel that way. Because you think that's the only thing that separates a mod from a 'proper game' everyone else should feel the same way. Well they don't.