PC gaming, piracy and the death of pc fps

[CptStern]

GDC Panel: PC Gaming in an Age of Connected Consoles
- Obsidian's Chris Avellone, Epic president Michael Capps, Electronic Arts producer Richard Hilleman, and Firaxis designer Soren Johnson.

The Doom: Since 2001, there's been a $500 million drop in revenue in PC gaming every year. The Hope: That doesn't account for casual games and online subscription models from games such as World of Warcraft. The panel generally agreed that PC gaming as the hard-core know it is dying -- Epic spelled out the high cost of entry ($500+ graphics cards) for a game like Crysis, and the fact that the people who even have these graphics card often pirate the games anyway.

also from GDC, Todd Hollenshead on pc gaming

Looking ahead to the future, Todd Hollenshead proposed a few ways that piracy could be combated. Perhaps PC games should adopt a subscription only method, he said, or perhaps it should be a requirement to connect to the Internet to finish installing (something that certain Steam games already require). Or, he proposed, the drastic measure of abandoning PC entirely and going to consoles. He gave a few key examples of that happening, like Halo from Bungie and Epic's Unreal and Gears of War franchises. You know the situation is bad when the CEO of id Software, a bastion of PC gaming, is saying that maybe they should just go to consoles because that market is bigger anyway.

http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15448

they conviently ignore the fact that a focus on graphics over gameplay quickly inflated their development costs to the point where focusing on certain markets only quickly became unprofitable, at least in the sense of market share and units sold. But they have only themselves to blame: repetition breeds complacency; why purchase iteration x of game y if the last version is just as good/better? that model works better with console games as casual gamers are more receptive to franchise IPs.


this past 12 months can be best described as the year of the rts, the fps segment of pc gaming has been almost non existant ..surely rts games are as easy to pirate as fps ..or could it be that it's pirated less due to the type of player most likely to play rts games? In any event the fact that there is less choice means pc gaming needs to reinvent itself in order to stay competitive/alive ..the GDC panel thinks persistent worlds and casual games will help keep pc gaming afloat ..hopefully from this need to branch out comes real innovation in gaming ..the consoles can pigeon hole themselves within a narrow base of genres (mostly the 360, the ps3 remains to be seen, and the wii looks to break the mold but mostly because of nintendo's initiative and commitment to first party development)but in order for pc gaming to grow it needs to try new things that just arent possible on consoles ..like persistent worlds but not just WoW clones, varied types of MMO and even single player games that are always conneted to servers for gameplay purposes like stat tracking, co-op, connected gameplay etc (Windows Live is not the solution; it's systematic of the problem) ..games like Crossfire that fuse sp and multiplayer ..or even open ended worlds like Stalker but with limited mp capability; perhaps with instanced levels that can be played solo or co-op with a few other people.

funny thing about stalker is that it's the most innovative pc fps in quite some time and before it's even released it's already avaible on the torrent sites ..some of our own members who have been waiting for this game for years jumped on the pirating bandwagon ..they'll probably be the first to lament that there's no expansion or sequel planned

Steam seems to work out fairly well for Valve however they too need to refocus their gameplay vision ..a game on rails, no matter how elaborate is still a game on rails ..disposable gameplay is best served by the console market who go through games at a much faster rate. I think they've recognised this by repacking hl2+ for the console market .. they've seen the need to break out from traditional sp fps somewhat with portal so there's hope that at some point Valve will approach narrative with a more open ended gameplay solution. I'd love to play in a seamless go anywhere HL2 universe where I decide what I want to do instead of being led by the developer

obviously there's quite a lot I havent touched upon but that's where you come in; discuss ...

fps pc gaming is dead (dying) long live FPS PC gaming

[Ennui]

Let it die, I say. A collapse of the commercial computer gaming industry would be a revolution in user-made games, and I think it'd probably eventually improve the quality of games because once again we'd be forced to focus on gameplay over graphics.

[StardogChampion]

For me, I think it's partly the fault of ATI and NVIDIA. They're coming out with new cards far too frequently, and if games want to be competitive they have to have the latest graphics technologies which bump up dev costs and increases the risk.

Part of why people like consoles is because they know whatever game they buy for it will run like a dream. 9/10 games that I buy I know I won't be able to run on high graphics settings, so maybe that can add to certain people's incentive to pirate.

If they could just stick to one range of cards for 1.5-2 years at least there would be a more stable base for devs to work off of. If people know they can run a game on high settings, and it's using the latest graphics technology PC games can currently offer, I think they'd be less likely to pirate it.

[sea]

I think we'll see a resurgence in first-person shooters after Half-Life 2: Episode Two comes out along with Portal. I think after all the Quake 4s, Mights and Magics, and whatnot, the industry is a little tired of getting substandard shooting experience. There needs to be something that really gets it right to reinvigorate the market, and I get the feeling Half-Life will be it. Crysis looks like it's going to be good, but it's such an elitist experience that I don't think it will be very successful. Customers aren't willing to pay huge prices for great graphics anymore and bend over for the hardware and software makers every year when they can grab an Xbox 360 and get games that look nearly as good for a fraction of the price. Even Valve knows this - it's putting Half-Life 2 on both next-generation consoles, after all.

It's true for me, certainly. The last couple of years the only PC games I've really played are real-time strategy coupled with Hitman and some very rare first-person-shooting moments. Console gaming, meanwhile, takes up most of my time. I'm a Nintendo fan and I find Metroid Prime, Zelda, and Mario far more immersive experiences than what's available on the PC right now, save for real-time strategy games. It makes me wonder... with a console like the Wii, are we going to now see strategy games shift over to consoles as well? Or are strategy games' technological dependence going to keep them on the PC? I don't think I could ever picture something like Supreme Commander on any console.

[CptStern]

the death of pc and the growth of consoles is somewhat of a bad thing ..we went from user controlled gaming market where gamers controlled how well a game sold based on user created content that stretched the games lifespan ..without the freedom to do this Battlefield 1942, for example wouldnt have been as big; desert combat wouldnt have spawned BF2, or picture HL without user made mods: there would be no counterstrike, day of defeat, team fortress etc ....this is not possible with closed systems like console games. Console gaming forces you to play by there rules; they dictate how you play games, who you play them with, and what games you play and purchase ...not so much with the pc market that can be made or broken by the modding scene ..although much less so in recent history

[Ennui]

Imagine, though, if all these companies went bankrupt or stopped developing for PC or whatever - the computer/internet crowd is far too hardcore for that to stop them, I mean there are still plenty of people that feel like the current influx of people to the internet, with AOL culture and whatnot, is just temporary and we'll be back to a high-tech version of text BBS's and telnetting eventually.

We'd have all these then-archaic but still powerful engines to play with, and since people at their houses don't have the capability to produce AAA title next-gen graphics, the focus would be on gameplay. Teams of mostly coders, etc. I could see it.

[mortiz]

Funny thing is the consoles are getting more PC-like anyway. Now they have hard-drives and internet connections. The more like a PC they get the more open to piracy they become.

People blaming piracy for the downfall of PC-gaming is ridiculous, if anything it's marketing. You've got Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony all plowing millions of dollars into advertising their consoles. Microsoft were the only company semi-fighting for PC-gaming, but even they've jumped ship. The major companies can exert far more influence on a console than they can on a PC, Microsoft didn't even have control over what people were doing with Windows, which is why the big companies love them so much.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with PC Gaming, prices aren't that bad, you can get a decent upgrade for about ?1000 assuming you don't replace everything and that PC will last you 3 to 4 years like mine has. They're looking at the sale of games at retail stores and going "Oh noes! PC gaming is t3h dead!" but games bought over the internet now makes up a much larger proportion of all games sold than it once did. Include those figures and the drop wouldn't be near as much.

GameDevs are partially to blame. Their constant need for graphics whoring over game play is what's driving the video-card manufacturers to create new cards every two months. On a console you have an upper-limit, it's like "here's your hardware, get the best out of it", some do some don't. With PC game development there is no-upper limit. They're thought process is "we'll create this ub3r looking game that requires 4 GPU run in parallel just to render the main menu" and they know that there's a group of gamers out there that will buy the latest and greatest hardware, leaving people who can't afford it or have better things to spend their money on in the larch.

[Warbie]

For me, I think it's partly the fault of ATI and NVIDIA. They're coming out with new cards far too frequently, and if games want to be competitive they have to have the latest graphics technologies which bump up dev costs and increases the risk.

I've certainly been put off buying recent pc games as the hardware requirements have been too high. This has to be the case for many other people to.

Each month I flick through Edge and see the great looking console games that I could buy, and the great looking pc games that I can't. When once avid pc gamers are being priced out of market something is going very wrong - are we really expected to spend large sums of money every 6 months or so just to play a handful of games? It doesn't seem worthwhile to me, especially when just a few of the handful are worth playing in the first place.

Ennui is right - let pc gaming die and hope something better grows out of the ashes.

[CptStern]

Funny thing is the consoles are getting more PC-like anyway. Now they have hard-drives and internet connections. The more like a PC they get the more open to piracy they become.

People blaming piracy for the downfall of PC-gaming is ridiculous, if anything it's marketing. You've got Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony all plowing millions of dollars into advertising their consoles. Microsoft were the only company semi-fighting for PC-gaming, but even they've jumped ship. The major companies can exert far more influence on a console than they can on a PC, Microsoft didn't even have control over what people were doing with Windows, which is why the big companies love them so much.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with PC Gaming, prices aren't that bad, you can get a decent upgrade for about ?1000 assuming you don't replace everything and that PC will last you 3 to 4 years like mine has. They're looking at the sale of games at retail stores and going "Oh noes! PC gaming is t3h dead!" but games bought over the internet now makes up a much larger proportion of all games sold than it once did. Include those figures and the drop wouldn't be near as much.




agreed ..however it's developer migration to consoles that has me worried ..sure they're just translating traditional pc fps into consoles and repeateing that formula ad nauseum but at the same time we're getting ports from the console version ..so what was once a staple of the pc market has been regurgitated as a console game with less features/gameplay than when it was on pc ..to add insult to injury they then offer a console port to pc gamers of a game that was once a pc game (see: ghost recon, rainbow six games etc)without any of the features that made these games hits on the pc in the first place ..it's a sad day when I have to accept a port of console game that once was a pc game but is now a fraction of what it once was ...this alone has turned me off fps lately

[Gray Fox]

Piracy is as if not even more rampant on consoles then PC, it's ridiculously easy to pirate console games, maybe the current gen consoles with their constant firmware updates will change that but the point still stands, since last gen consoles did gain a lot of ground compared to PC's, and they were just way to easy to pirate for. You just needed a good burner and a modchip or swap magic, and it the case of the xbox a firmware hack,thats it, not worries from securom or starforce or whatever.

[Dalamari]

People play PC games anymore?

I've personally not played a PC game since I got my 360 on xmas

[Ennui]

That's a ridiculous claim. Some people pirate (because it's quite easy as you said) console games, but they're a very small minority, and it's not nearly as popular or widespread as computer piracy. Out of people I know that play computer games, I'd say that 85% of them have pirated, and about 40% do so regularly... out of the people I know that play console games, I'd say less than 1% pirate.

And Dal, Crackdown has been eating all my gaming time, it's so good.

[BirdMan]

If games are moving to consoles, they're still not going to get much money from me, I just modchipped my Wii :)!

[Warbie]

..it's a sad day when I have to accept a port of console game that once was a pc game but is now a fraction of what it once was ...this alone has turned me off fps lately

I agree. It's not just on the pc, but fps in general. The genre has become stale.

You mention that pc gaming needs something all of its own, something that consoles currently can't cater for, and I think you're right. Personally, i'd like online co-op in persistent worlds to be explored - think an mmo with just 5 people.

[Dalamari]

If they made a game as great as GRAW 2 or Dead Rising for the PC, I might have to play, but otherwise I just use my PC for porn, message boards, and downloading movies/tv shows

[Gray Fox]

That's a ridiculous claim. Some people pirate (because it's quite easy as you said) console games, but they're a very small minority, and it's not nearly as popular or widespread as computer piracy. Out of people I know that play computer games, I'd say that 85% of them have pirated, and about 40% do so regularly... out of the people I know that play console games, I'd say less than 1% pirate.

And Dal, Crackdown has been eating all my gaming time, it's so good.

Arguments from personal experience are pretty useless. I have had a completely different experience, and when I look at torrent sites most of the time the console games have a higher number of leeches and seeders then most PC games.

Not only that PC pirating is also due to people not wanting to get screwed by system specs, demo's have proven to be unrealible as a true test and measure weather or not ag me will work properly till the end, so one can say that when people pirate consoles games they most certainly pirate them because they want to get the game for a nothing while when it comes to pc, the gamers seem to be more loyal then console gamers to their developers. Not in the least because of the bonds created by user content like mods, which often require a legal copy.

And even then, that someone pirates does not mean they will not buy the game later if it turn out to be really great

Like others I do not feel pirating has such a big influence on sales, if anything it might even help, since it lowers the threshold for people to try new games, and opens up the market to people with less money that are effectively priced out of the market for the sake of gaining the maximum profit in a short timespan, without regard for expansing the market or community.

[mortiz]

That's a ridiculous claim. Some people pirate (because it's quite easy as you said) console games, but they're a very small minority, and it's not nearly as popular or widespread as computer piracy. Out of people I know that play computer games, I'd say that 85% of them have pirated, and about 40% do so regularly... out of the people I know that play console games, I'd say less than 1% pirate.

And Dal, Crackdown has been eating all my gaming time, it's so good.

wow, you have a lot of friends, less than 1 percent? So that's more than 100 people that you know play consoles and don't pirate games?

[CptStern]

I agree. It's not just on the pc, but fps in general. The genre has become stale.

You mention that pc gaming needs something all of its own, something that consoles currently can't cater for, and I think you're right. Personally, i'd like online co-op in persistent worlds to be explored - think an mmo with just 5 people.

yes agreed ..I want that to become pc gaming ..persistent worlds where there's more to do than just go from point A to point B/level grind

let me join 4 friends and drop into some primitive dangerous planet in a persistent universe where people have real choice as to how they want to play a game

[StardogChampion]

Arguments from personal experience are pretty useless. I have had a completely different experience, and when I look at torrent sites most of the time the console games have a higher number of leeches and seeders then most PC games.

Not only that PC pirating is also due to people not wanting to get screwed by system specs, demo's have proven to be unrealible as a true test and measure weather or not ag me will work properly till the end, so one can say that when people pirate consoles games they most certainly pirate them because they want to get the game for a nothing while when it comes to pc, the gamers seem to be more loyal then console gamers to their developers. Not in the least because of the bonds created by user content like mods, which often require a legal copy.
I just checked a torrent site and GRAW only has a few hundred less seeds than Stalker. Considering Stalker is newer that's to be expected though. It seems 360 pirating is just as bad as PC.

I don't think it helps when games don't release demos either. I think a demo would tide a lot of would-be piraters over until the release.

[Samon]

Steam seems to work out fairly well for Valve however they too need to refocus their gameplay vision ..a game on rails, no matter how elaborate is still a game on rails ..disposable gameplay is best served by the console market who go through games at a much faster rate. I think they've recognised this by repacking hl2+ for the console market .. they've seen the need to break out from traditional sp fps somewhat with portal so there's hope that at some point Valve will approach narrative with a more open ended gameplay solution. I'd love to play in a seamless go anywhere HL2 universe where I decide what I want to do instead of being led by the developer

That, for me, is the worst direction the Half-life series could go. I do not in any way believe in an open ended narrative structure and the removal of linearity is what will kill FPS for me. There should not be "One, or the other." there should be both. I love HL2 for its linearity. Choices in the story? Can't stand it. Messy, unfocused narrative and its removal would be the worst direction. A controlled narrative is a good narrative and I'd hate, at any point, for that to change (I'm looking at you Spector). Sure, I'm all for some games approaching things from this direction but eh, all of them? No way. I'd cringe if Valve even considered it for the future of the series. The gameplay in HL2 (for me) is nothing like a traditional FPS; it's so much different and I think that's what gives it it's flare. I think FPS needs to move away from the "Move from room to room, shoot." and try and do something different when approaching each of these rooms. Simply because I'm confined to a path does not mean I'm not going to have fun. I'm not interested what route I take in getting there, it's what I do in the path I'm given.

Warren Spector spoke of removing linearity at GDC because he was tired of it (why does this mean the rest of the industry has to follow? You're tired of linearity, then there's a simple solution Warren: do something different). I scoffed at him. Why? Because you remove something completely and you focus on a specific thing then that itself is going to grow stale and were back to square one. It's all about the individual game doing something different. "This ones getting old, lets move onto something else." Ridiculous logic and if anything, that is what will be the death of the genre, or any genre infact. You can't just move on when you feel you have tried hard enough on what's already there. No, you build on it and you introduce new elements into it. That's the only way things are going to get better. I find the proposition that non-linearity = better game is absolutely mind-boggling. I think Valve broke well and truly out of the traditional FPS confines with HL2, and more so with Episode 1; it's just that the trend hasn't caught on in terms of varying gameplay (and surprise, you don't need multiple paths to do it).

[ríomhaire]

Why the attack on linear games? A grand total of zero of my favourite games are non-linear. Linearity offers the developers more control which is quite important for the insurance of quality control. Sandbox games tend to get old rather quickly and I quickly lost interest in Oblivion.

[Laivasse]

Some good points all round, esp. Mortiz and Gray Fox. Like others here I think that piracy is a red herring as a culprit for PC sales dropping off. PC games sales were fighting a losing battle long before Torrent sites became widespread. The point about console piracy is on the money too - one of the major reasons the PS1 had such longevity was the ease with which you could pirate stuff on it. There is no reason it would be affecting one market so bad and not the other.

What is most to blame is the general user-unfriendliness of PC-gaming vs. the marketing power and hype behind the current crop of consoles, which just keeps gaining momentum with each generation that arrives. There's not much you can do about the marketing power of the big 3 console players atm, but on the PC end you can blame developers with an unrealistic view of what the public at large will be capable of running, or interested in shelling out on hardware to run. I bought a more-or-less top of the line comp a few years ago and within months of purchase, in magazines I was seeing PC games that I knew would run too choppily to be worth buying, if they would run at all. A few-?100 is not good enough for a PC upgrade when you can get a completely new next-gen console for the same money.

That doesn't diminish the fact that I love PC gaming and don't want it to die - it's still the top choice if you want decent RPG's or FPS's IMO (although both crops are drying up). But Stern's right about PC games suffering increasingly in the butchery of having converted them from PC to console, after which the next version of the game becomes a console to PC port that loses all the little quirks/customisability that made the originals great. It used to feel like PC gaming rewarded those people who put in the little bit of extra effort to put together a gaming rig and configure their hardware properly, and I'd like that to continue, but it seems to be less and less the case nowadays.

That, for me, is the worst direction the Half-life series could go. I do not in any way believe in an open ended narrative structure and the removal of linearity is what will kill FPS for me. There should not be "One, or the other." there should be both. I love HL2 for its linearity.
Also QFT, and the rest of that post. I love well crafted linear and non-linear games in equal measure.

[alehm]

The blame of developers putting out recycled games also lays partly on the cusomer public as well. Games which do try and break the mold genrally do not sell well. If the gaming community really wants change they need to speak with their pocketbooks.

Piracy can't receive all the blame for reduced PC sales. I would be interested to know the trend of PC sales since consoles started making a big comeback. I know several people who no longer game on a PC and made the switch to consoles. Lost market share, not piracy.

Also, just because someone pirates a game doesn't equate that he/she would have bought that game had it been impossible to pirate in the first place. Be it young kids who are downloading more games than their parents would have ever bought, or someone who decided they would not pay $50 for a certain game but interested in playing it for a short time anyway. In either scenario, the developer didn't lose a sale because it was never going to happen in the first place. I am not saying this to belittle the problem facing PC developers regaurding piracy. But I have the feeling the answer is just more complicated than being presented.

[Warbie]

It seems 360 pirating is just as bad as PC.

Not a chance, percentage wise at least. Far, far more people play console games.


I also like linear fps, but have been playing them for years. Sure, advances can be made in story telling and narrative, and nobody would like to see the death of fps a we know them, but now is the time for something new.

[CptStern]

That, for me, is the worst direction the Half-life series could go. I do not in any way believe in an open ended narrative structure and the removal of linearity is what will kill FPS for me. There should not be "One, or the other." there should be both.

I agree there should be choice however there comes a time when the man behind the curtain pulling the strings becomes more an more visible ..most gamers should be able to pick out a cliche fps gaming convention the very second it materialises ..like around every corner awaits a horde of beasties ready to spawn and if you save right before going around the corner you can easily re-start when you're killed

I love HL2 for its linearity.




Choices in the story? Can't stand it. Messy, unfocused narrative and its removal would be the worst direction.

ok maybe I wasnt being clear but I didnt mean choice as in you choose to play the narrative ..I meant the narrative is augmented by choice ..like for instance you can choose to take out a munitions plant early in the game that later on will affect you on another level ..or choice of subplots to play through ..narrative still needs to be a part of the game ...despite the fact that the majority of video games narrative is the last thing of importance ..ive seen better plots on the backs of cereal boxes than in most video games ..even HL2 was a set piece delivery system where narrative was the impetus to drive you to the next set piece ..despite it being deep for a single player game it's still nowhere as memerable as even the most mundane of movie plots ..mostly because the limitations of video games as a story telling vehicle

A controlled narrative is a good narrative and I'd hate, at any point, for that to change (I'm looking at you Spector). Sure, I'm all for some games approaching things from this direction but eh, all of them? No way. I'd cringe if Valve even considered it for the future of the series.

it adds replayability ..rollercoaster rides are fun for a single ride ...on repeated runs it loses some of it's magic ..at least with open ended games they give players different options on how to play the game

The gameplay in HL2 (for me) is nothing like a traditional FPS; it's so much different and I think that's what gives it it's flare. I think FPS needs to move away from the "Move from room to room, shoot." and try and do something different when approaching each of these rooms. Simply because I'm confined to a path does not mean I'm not going to have fun. I'm not interested what route I take in getting there, it's what I do in the path I'm given.

while I agree that HL2 is the creme de la creme of fps it still does rely on past gaming conventions to drive the game forward: setpeices with specific focused gameplay ..it's more akin to a carnival funhouse ride with frequent stops in different areas ..it's just far better hidden than the majority of games out there

Warren Spector spoke of removing linearity at GDC. I scoffed at him. Why? Because you remove something completely and you focus on a specific thing then that itself is going to grow stale and were back to square one. It's all about the individual game doing something different. "This ones getting old, lets move onto something else." Ridiculous logic and if anything, that is what will be the death of the genre, or any genre infact. You can't just move on when you feel you have tried hard enough on what's already there. No, you build on it and you introduce new elements into it.

but the game on rails has been done to death ..there is nowhere new for it to go ..each new game on rails is the same as the last one but with a new added feature

That's the only way things are going to get better. I find the proposition that non-linearity = better game is absolutely mind-boggling.

it's not that at all ..it's deconstructing the tried and true linear gameplay of the past to rebuild it as something new

I think Valve broke well and truly out of the traditional FPS confines with HL2, and more so with Episode 1; it's just that the trend hasn't caught on in terms of varying gameplay (and surprise, you don't need multiple paths to do it).

honestly I see nothing new in EP1 ..I've actually had a very hard time playing it because it's just so predicatable ..I still havent finished it despite having purchased it last year

I think Valve does what nobody else can ..create a rollercoaster ride where the ride is barely discernible, however they need to branch out and try something a little more risky. As invovators they can afford to wait for the industry to catch up ...once they have it's time to move to greener pastures and that means innovating a stagnated genre

[Tamer17]

Of course. A day isn't perfect w\o another grim prophecy about the pc's future.

While presistent-world games are important, i wouldn't want them to become the main landscape on the PC. At least not the monthly fee type.

I just don't think those kinds of games are engaging,deep,impacting enough to make me pay for them monthly. It's too "loose" and can lead,as we can see right now, to bunch of games that offer a superficial game experience.

So you got the big world to wonder through, a main quest to tackle and a level to reach too - but it's nothing. It's not involving enough or fresh in the long run. You kill another monster,clear another dungeon , gather more money , level up time and time again. The game becomes a routine and worse the game development becomes that. "throw them another map or two , new world with some more new dungeons" and they keep dishing this same-all content,for additional payment-in the worst example, like they are keep pleasing the MMO aadicts who want more and more.

Left 4 Dead and The Crossing sound far more interesting and compelling multi-player game experiences than those of the most MMO's. Plus, they don't require any monthly fees.

Piracy became the scape-goat of game developers incompetence. I'm sick of hearing this excuse. People buy good games , even on the PC , so make one.
How can they blame piracy for them deserting the pc market. It's not like they are making on consoles those marvelous original games. They make more conventional and less devoted games on the whole.

The console market is made of alot more casual and young gamers who are easier to satisfy than the avarge PC gamer. That's why the pc ports of console games gets lower scores and negative reactions by the gamers.
The bar is lower in the consoles. Any "proffesional" developer can make a half-arsed game tie it with some franchise or a celeb. as voice actor , or have lots of achievments the kids will di3 for to get - and that game will sell well. For the console users it's a legitimate game to play.

PC Gamers demand more. That't the bottom line , and many developers are in in to make cash , so the console market is far better suited for their scheme.
(and no , i ain't seeing consoles don't have good games as well).

I remember analysts saying before COH was released that RTS games reached their peak and we won't see any more great ones. Look what we have now. They said adventure is dead and look what we got now - so they can shout PC is dying for long as they want to , it won't matter.

PC developers just got to continue to explore and push gaming forward. Refine what we have not and break new frontiers. They got to , and they are doing it now , beat the consoles in their "own" game - make the best FPS,action,RPG games and etc on the PC and along-side make good games that have no equivilant on the consoles like RTS games , adventure , Multiplayer-centerd and so on.

If they are so alarmed by their sales on the pc , then do something. Reduce the costs, draw customers with fresh ideas and quality work. You can't cry about the situation and keep doing the same stuff on the consoles , becuase you profit enough there. If you are making a PC game, them make it for PC - not a broken console port. Disrespecting your customers won't help you. Neither making the game run only on SM3 only cards and cutting the majority of the people.

Nintendo fans always like to say "if you build them , they will come". The same goes here. Be worried on making a quality game rather than worried about how it will sell. If it's good,then,mostly, people will buy it. "Even" on the PC.

[Samon]

ok maybe I wasnt being clear but I didnt mean choice as in you choose to play the narrative ..I meant the narrative is augmented by choice ..like for instance you can choose to take out a munitions plant early in the game that later on will affect you on another level ..or choice of subplots to play through ..narrative still needs to be a part of the game ...

I can't say that really appeals to me from a gameplay perspective. I've seen that example implemented into one or two games, and kudo's to them it worked well; but there's a place, and such mechanics don't work within the context every time. I don't see this as a truly appealing step forward. Choice of subplots to play through? That's what RPG'S are for. On the rails narrative works pretty well from a design point of view and I think were only just seeing where it can take fps.


even HL2 was a set piece delivery system where narrative was the impetus to drive you to the next set piece ..despite it being deep for a single player game it's still nowhere as memerable as even the most mundane of movie plots ..mostly because the limitations of video games as a story telling vehicle

Whilst I'm not putting the storyline of Half-life 2 on the highest of pedestals (it is a game afterall, and story delivery and methods is a tricky thing to pull off), I've seen alot of mundane movies that fall pretty far under it. The narrative in HL2, for a game, is total genius. When playing I felt I was directly involved in the discovery of what's going. You aren't spoonfed at all and I'd go so far as to say Half-life 2 achieves true non-linearity in its method. Subplots? Choices? Pish posh. HL2 places you in a situation where you've not really much idea what's going on, and since the characters expect you to understand you have to put the pieces together yourself. No game has matched the level of immersion the narrative in that game manages: no game. The first chapter is strung together in a way that every step you take you learn something new about the world and what's going on. You do it yourself, you harvest information and you put it together how you percieve it. Whether it be visual, audio or something else - there's not a game I can think of with such depth. That to me is true non-linearity.


it adds replayability ..rollercoaster rides are fun for a single ride ...on repeated runs it loses some of it's magic ..at least with open ended games they give players different options on how to play the game

This is where I disagree with people on re playability. Yes, it's often nice (especially in an RPG) to go through the game and sort of play it differently. But is it really that appealing? Eh, not for me. I'd rather go and replay something I enjoyed the first time. To hell with whether I'm effectively doing the same scene again, I'm having fun with it. That to me is re playability; not a bunch of different ways that affect the game. Whenever I replay Deus Ex I cannot pull myself away from the way I play it. I don't take different routes nor tread down different story paths. I play it the way I want to play it, the way I've always played it and the way I enjoy. Not the way that's different. That isn't re playability to me...it's just doing something I don't want to do.


while I agree that HL2 is the creme de la creme of fps it still does rely on past gaming conventions to drive the game forward: setpeices with specific focused gameplay ..it's more akin to a carnival funhouse ride with frequent stops in different areas ..it's just far better hidden than the majority of games out there

Specific focused gameplay is something that can be polished and perfected until it's fun no matter what. So long as you aren't playing again and again, you can go back to it a few months later and still have the same fun you did the first time round.


but the game on rails has been done to death ..there is nowhere new for it to go ..each new game on rails is the same as the last one but with a new added feature

On a rails has only just begun to go somewhere. People think with on a rails you sort of hit a point where you can't go any further. The simple truth is yes, yes you can. The problem is developers like Warren who think whoop, exhausted; solution? Not on a rails? No, that isn't a solution. That might be an interesting path to tread, but it shouldn't be the only path they tread. If the gameplay is fun and innovative then you need to keep pushing forward, and that is the point I think the Half-life series is at. There's so much more you can do with an on the rails shooter and like I said, were only seeing the beginning of it. AI is a big thing for me and I think Valve really went out of their way to take coop AI in a new direction, and it looks more so in Episode 2. There's a million things to do within a confined space, all it takes is a little innovation. Metal Gear solid is another game that takes the exact same approach to gameplay as HL2 does.

honestly I see nothing new in EP1 ..I've actually had a very hard time playing it because it's just so predicatable ..I still havent finished it despite having purchased it last year

Episode 1 is small, polished and the gameplay does new things. It goes pretty downhill at the last chapter but the AI behaviour and the two beginning chapters are really a step in the right direction. You don't even have weapons at the beginning. The scene with Alyx and the Stalker blocking the door has to go down as one of my favourite scenes in an FPS. The execution and team work really help build into something there never was before.


I think Valve does what nobody else can ..create a rollercoaster ride where the ride is barely discernible, however they need to branch out and try something a little more risky.

Their entire narrative approach to HL2 was very risky. Nothing like it has been done before, and whilst daunting to the average gamer its pure non-linear genius. I'm saying were already there; it's just time to take it to the next level.

That said I couldn't give a shit about PC gaming. I'm talking from an FPS point of view here. Gaming is gaming as far as I'm concerned; I like my consoles and my PC.

[Warbie]

While presistent-world games are important, i wouldn't want them to become the main landscape on the PC. At least not the monthly fee type.

I just don't think those kinds of games are engaging,deep,impacting enough to make me pay for them monthly. It's too "loose" and can lead,as we can see right now, to bunch of games that offer a superficial game experience.

That's kind of the point - there's so much scope for this type of game to become more engaging, deep ....

Give me a persitent world filled with intricate little systems to play with, and ai doing all the boring jobs people would refuse to do in an mmo and going about their daily business, and i'll be happy. Add some friends in the mix - for the whole world to be your sandbox - and i'd happily subscribe for years on end.

The problem with WoW (and Galaxies etc) is that as gameworlds they're far from convincing - everyone's a hero, monsters respawn, zones are divided into level. Design wise it's inherently flawed, and the game is little more than a big version of Phantasy Star Online - cities are large meeting lobbies the the drive is to kill things for loot.

If the only human element was a group of 5 people there could be far more structure, focus and developer influence. There could be multiple threads of narrative and various goals/obejectives get involved in. It certainly wouldn't be easy, but if enough time and money was put into creating such a place it would be possible.

I actually feel that seemingly shallow games like Crackdown are pushing the envelope as much titles like HL2. One day these two game types will blend and it'll be awesome :)

[A True Canadian]

..like for instance you can choose to take out a munitions plant early in the game that later on will affect you on another level

There's two games I can remember where this happens: Deus Ex, and Perfect Dark(N64).

I'll use a Perfect Dark example.

In the final level of the Area51 missions there are two ways it can be completed and the player dictates which way they will end the level.

You have 3 characters trying to escape: Joanna Dark (player controlled), Jonathon, and Elvis (the alien). The alien spaceship only has enough room for one passenger, so Jonathon suggests he stay behind and open the hanger doors so that Joanna and Elvis can escape. If the player does as Jonathon says, they will exit in the spacecraft and end the level. After this Jonathon is never seen again in the game (implying that he died in Area51).

However, if the player runs after Jonathon, a sequence is triggered and Joanna will tell Jonathan to go in the spacecraft instead. Jonathon agrees and he escapes with Elvis. Joanna (controlled by the player) now has to find an alternate escape to end the level (by means of a hoverbike). The nice thing about ending the mission this way is that Jonathon will remain alive, and he shows up in a later level to assist you.

This is one of the more memorable moments in the game, and all because of the player's choice. I'm shocked that developers haven't persued this type of gameplay further.


Perhaps the reason why PC games are dying is because there isn't enough focus on delivering a unique gaming experience. Nowaday's it seems like the only way PC shooters are distinguishing themselves is through the graphics alone. On the consoles the graphics are only as good as the hardware allows, so developers must look to the story and the gameplay to seperate themselves from the competition.

[Kyorisu]

Also, just because someone pirates a game doesn't equate that he/she would have bought that game had it been impossible to pirate in the first place. Be it young kids who are downloading more games than their parents would have ever bought, or someone who decided they would not pay $50 for a certain game but interested in playing it for a short time anyway. In either scenario, the developer didn't lose a sale because it was never going to happen in the first place. I am not saying this to belittle the problem facing PC developers regaurding piracy. But I have the feeling the answer is just more complicated than being presented.

"Piracy costs the music industry."

This is only an example obviously and I'm not sure who actually said that line. Piracy only costs companies money because they choose to spend money in anti-copying technologies that are constantly broken by those with the know how. For games this is far more apparent.

How much does a securom license cost?

[Laivasse]

..like for instance you can choose to take out a munitions plant early in the game that later on will affect you on another level
I hate those types of artificial choices in games - if anything they show the hand-of-the-maker/puppetstring effect far worse than most on-rails experiences. In a game like HL2 you might be forced along the same route at all times, but the skill with which the world is crafted is meant to make you feel as if you are choosing the most natural path of progression by laying the route that's been set down for you. So if the road curves around a corner, you follow it; if a Combine wall crashes down to the right of you, you move to the left, etc.

There is no choice in the route, but there is non-linearity in the hundreds of little choices you make as to the style of play you adopt along the way. For those that scoff at this idea, consider the difference between someone who proceeds through the game very deliberately, taking time to peer at weird bits of scenery, zoom in on newspaper articles and wonder about the background of the world, and someone who ploughs through the game on Easy in 4 hours while jumping on the heads of NPCs during dialogue scenes, who then comes on the forums and asks 'wtf wuz goin on, were in USA was HL2 set???'

Or the difference between someone who takes on firefights very cautiously while trying to keep all their NPC squad alive, and someone who dives into a gunfight without caring to take stock, and who barely notices when an NPC stops following. Or someone who fights with the pulse rifle all the time compared to someone who likes to find radiators to dink against Overwatch skulls. I think this is what Samon means by the non-linearity of an essentially linear game. I don't think it's something to be sneezed at - among 1000's of players of HL2 on this site, I'd say there have probably been a few hundred quite different experiences of the HL2 world.

Compare that to having a game where you know that there are periods of linearity interspersed with a few completely contrived choices, which you KNOW will have an effect later (because you know it's been coded that way, or else what's the point). For me there's nothing that breaks suspension of disbelief and reminds me I'm playing a game more than that kind of thing.

That's not to say that there haven't been awesome non-linear games too, but you can't replace the kind of 'linearity' that you get from a game like HL2 with complete non-linearity, because you simply can't do a game like HL2 within a non-linear world.

[Qonfused]

I do not care if a game is linear, or non, has great graphics or an engaging story line. If it's fun, I'll play it. Granted that the listed items are nice and add to the overall depth of the game, if the game play sucks, it doesn't matter.

[CptStern]

sheesh Samon, you make this an interesting albeit time consuming discussion, kudos; you bring a lot of good points to the table ..the rest of you as well :)




I can't say that really appeals to me from a gameplay perspective. I've seen that example implemented into one or two games, and kudo's to them it worked well; but there's a place, and such mechanics don't work within the context every time.

I don't see this as a truly appealing step forward. Choice of subplots to play through? That's what RPG'S are for. On the rails narrative works pretty well from a design point of view and I think were only just seeing where it can take fps.

I agree ..I'm also referring to something that really isnt offered today ..it's more akin to what Warbie has been saying: a persistent world where the totality of your actions influences the game somewhat and not in such a way that it ruins the pure narrative of the story ..which is sort of the point of a "on the rails" game ..without the rails driving the story forward it often stumbles forward and even loses momentum ..so in essence you're correct when you say that an open world does not make for effective narrative due to lack of impetus to move forward ..without the rails it becomes drawn out and essentially time wasting activities till the plot takes over again ..we see this in MMOs; grinding towards higher content in between story missions that pretty much offer more of the same

open ended can truely mean "open ended": a living breathing world that carries on without you. Then and only then will we see pure narrative driven storytelling within an open enviroment ...create a living city, dump a whole wack of narrative, set the player loose to find the story ..not just gathering quests; but true plot driven narrative. You arrive at city A, you set up shop as a detecive, your first customer leads you on a wild chase in search of a legendary carved falcon from malta. Or you decide to become mob boss and set up shop in little italy and recruit from a steady flow of migrants ariving at ellis island, or join a resistance movement in some small caribean island long ruled by it's imperalistic neighbour ..anyways I digress ...my point is that open ended sandbox/persistant worlds are currently in their infancy ..there's so much more they can do, especially when it comes to plot driven content



Whilst I'm not putting the storyline of Half-life 2 on the highest of pedestals (it is a game afterall, and story delivery and methods is a tricky thing to pull off), I've seen alot of mundane movies that fall pretty far under it.

ya I apologize, I admit it was a poor analogy ..I've seen a lot of stinkers over the years


The narrative in HL2, for a game, is total genius. When playing I felt I was directly involved in the discovery of what's going. You aren't spoonfed at all and I'd go so far as to say Half-life 2 achieves true non-linearity in its method.

I agree, that's why I said HL2 was unique as a roller coaster ride ..but it's the exception rather than the rule ..far too many fps play exactly the same way as their next competitor ..immersiveness isnt even an issue most of the time because most fps repeatedly pull you out of immersion through the overuse of some cliched fps convention.

Subplots? Choices? Pish posh. HL2 places you in a situation where you've not really much idea what's going on, and since the characters expect you to understand you have to put the pieces together yourself. No game has matched the level of immersion the narrative in that game manages: no game. The first chapter is strung together in a way that every step you take you learn something new about the world and what's going on. You do it yourself, you harvest information and you put it together how you percieve it. Whether it be visual, audio or something else - there's not a game I can think of with such depth. That to me is true non-linearity.

agreed HL2 is the exception to the rule, I cant see too many developers toping it in those respects



This is where I disagree with people on re playability. Yes, it's often nice (especially in an RPG) to go through the game and sort of play it differently. But is it really that appealing? Eh, not for me. I'd rather go and replay something I enjoyed the first time. To hell with whether I'm effectively doing the same scene again, I'm having fun with it. That to me is re playability; not a bunch of different ways that affect the game.

but HL2 allows some choice..not every encounter plays out the same way ..not so with most fps where you know exactly what will spawn around which corner



Whenever I replay Deus Ex I cannot pull myself away from the way I play it. I don't take different routes nor tread down different story paths. I play it the way I want to play it, the way I've always played it and the way I enjoy. Not the way that's different. That isn't re playability to me...it's just doing something I don't want to do.

but you choose to play it that way ..deus ex is somewhat open ended in that respect



Specific focused gameplay is something that can be polished and perfected until it's fun no matter what. So long as you aren't playing again and again, you can go back to it a few months later and still have the same fun you did the first time round.

most devs cant afford the luxury nor have the desire to do that ...most game sales are made within the first month ..by then word of mouth is enough to slow sales; they really have no reason to add longevity to their games, especially on consoles where there's no community based inititive to prolong the game's lifespan



On a rails has only just begun to go somewhere. People think with on a rails you sort of hit a point where you can't go any further. The simple truth is yes, yes you can. The problem is developers like Warren who think whoop, exhausted; solution? Not on a rails? No, that isn't a solution. That might be an interesting path to tread, but it shouldn't be the only path they tread. If the gameplay is fun and innovative then you need to keep pushing forward, and that is the point I think the Half-life series is at. There's so much more you can do with an on the rails shooter and like I said, were only seeing the beginning of it. AI is a big thing for me and I think Valve really went out of their way to take coop AI in a new direction, and it looks more so in Episode 2. There's a million things to do within a confined space, all it takes is a little innovation. Metal Gear solid is another game that takes the exact same approach to gameplay as HL2 does.

i cant comment on MGS but HL2 imho is the pinnacle of where on the rails gaing can go, I cant see it evolving much more beyond that; they've already made the puppet's strings invisible



Episode 1 is small, polished and the gameplay does new things. It goes pretty downhill at the last chapter but the AI behaviour and the two beginning chapters are really a step in the right direction. You don't even have weapons at the beginning. The scene with Alyx and the Stalker blocking the door has to go down as one of my favourite scenes in an FPS. The execution and team work really help build into something there never was before.

Their entire narrative approach to HL2 was very risky. Nothing like it has been done before, and whilst daunting to the average gamer its pure non-linear genius. I'm saying were already there; it's just time to take it to the next level.

That said I couldn't give a shit about PC gaming. I'm talking from an FPS point of view here. Gaming is gaming as far as I'm concerned; I like my consoles and my PC.

yes but consoles seem to have taken a less is more even though its's not more approach when it comes to fps ..it's the scaling down of the fps into this neat little package that can be reworked ad nauseum because there's a whole new generation of gamers who never really had AAA fps on consoles that is the heart of the business model surrounding the fps model these days ...Prey is a good example ..while I was somewhat impressed by the delivery of the narrative it just became a vehicle for their new twist to gameplay in the hopes it would differentiate it from the next fps ..in Prey's case it was the upside down/rightside up game mechanic that almost screams "hey we're different because we have x gameplay mechanic" but underlying the new mechanic is the same tired game mechanic ..so in a sense these games tend to meld together with only certain features that set it apart from the next great must have fps

[Samon]

Good discussion and good points. I'll pick it up tomorrow...two chunky posts from me are enough for today I think. :P

[sinkoman]

It'd be wonderful if every dev used steam as their content delivery system.

At current, I really have no reason to fire up steam, except for the off game of CSS or Darwinia (both of which happen rarely). I'd love to be able to fire up Steam every day, and have all of my games there, ready for me.

Better for the consumer, and stops the piracy completely if you ask me. VALVe has the only anti-piracy system that works, without ruining the games or pissing off the consumer.

[Tamer17]

Most of the problems of open-ended and MMO to some degree is that by trying to encompass so much, they fail to do any single element properly or good enough so you end up with a shallow game. "Jack of all trades but master of none".

I agree with Samon on all the linear discussion. The player is fixed but all lies in the uniquness of the rail itself - you can still have and improve alot of stuff.

I can argue also on the replay value. Just how you can watch a movie and shows several times and enjoy it the same with games. Moreover, the replay makes you appriciate the quality even more. You don't know how good it is after playing something like Quake4 and then running HL2 again and it's completely different. I sit back and smile. This how FPS should be.

So i wouldn't like them to change the nature of the game. I would like very much to see Valve branch out and the Eurogamer interview mentioned that some of tjem would like to make a RTS and etc - I would like too.
Any branching should be with a new ip by them. They should leave the HL universe like the way it's now and push new gampeplay and genres through new IP's.
I hope they nail down the episodes approach. That seems the only way for them to produce HL and new games efficiently and with the quality we know.

[Bad^Hat]

I want a ****ing revival of the retro game. Damnit, I miss 2D. **** your graphics, gimme something fun to play.

[Qonfused]

Give me a long, amazingly-awesome Metal Slug remake over another WWII shooter any day.

[Bad^Hat]

Moar like Metal Slug ONLINE. With epic level editor and sharing. Win time for my facemouth yet?

[Qonfused]

omg

[DEATHMASTER]

pc gaming ftw hopefully nevar dye!!!1

[Warbie]

It's going to take more than improving story telling, narrative, and set pieces in a fps to really drag the genre forward. Stern mentions that the strings are invisible in HL2, which they are in some cases, yet I found things came crashing down when the fighting started. I know we disagree here, Samon, and I don't want to start another debate, but it's something that needs mentioning.

It's not just about being challenging and difficult (something I rabbit on about far too much), but rather convincing and empowering. The best narrative fades away when it becomes so obvious you're playing a video game - which is what happens for me everytime I pull a trigger in fps these days.

One recent and notable exception happened while I was playing Condemned, which, despite missing the bar in quite a few areas, does a few things well. Guns of any kind are extremely scarce and you're limited to the shots in a clip - you feel the top dog when you've got a gun and a whole lot weaker when you haven't. When you shoot someone there's a definate reaction, usually a horrible judder followed by their death. I was playing late one night, creeping through a deserted subway station, when a guy rushed by and darted through a door into a nearby office. As he passed the window I fired off a shot which went through the glass and into his head - his body crashed into the wall and everything went quiet. It all happened pretty quick, but the affect was as powerful as anything i'd experienced in a video game - it was shockingly empowering.

This is what fps need to improve upon. Not to fulfill a sick fantasy to do harm, but rather to give weight to your actions. If it doesn't feel like you're shooting something then how can a developer expect you to take anything seriously? Now if you can make someone feel guilty for shooting something in a video game, then you're onto a winner. Enough of running about with 10+ guns and a 1000 rounds of ammo stuffed in your pockets, guns should be precious and ammo something to conserve. Shoot someone in the leg and they should fall over, holding it in pain. Maybe even plead for mercy if you walk towards them with your gun held out. If you can involve the player to a greater degree by making the experience that much more convincing and by forcing them to make moral decisions, then the level of immersion will increase tenfold. Now the narrative has a chance.

As things stand, shooting a combine in HL2 has no more affect on me than than jumping on a koopa in Mario - they're just video game baddies, kill one and move onto the next. So much of the hard work Valve have obviously put it is undone with something that feels so fake.

[Laivasse]

I see what you're saying, Warbie, but I think the reason you have that problem in HL2 is because Valve were so ambitious with the sense of scale you were playing with.

I know what you mean when you talk about empowerment - but when reading that, the first thing that popped into my head was the experience in HL2 of walking around unarmed for ages at the beginning of the game, and then suddenly being given a weapon and killing my first CP. The sense of being shot at when all you have is a crowbar, flailing and making bloody wounds in the faces of your enemy, is pretty intense.

Of course, later on you look back and realise that you weren't in much danger, but how else do you manage the shift in scale between:
1 man vs. a few cops ---> vs. a police force ---> vs. an army ---> vs. an interdimensional empire.

I do think HL2 could have been meaner with the ammo, in order to force you to run away sometimes (other than just gunships and striders when there's no rocket crate around). But I don't think it's as bad that it can be compared to jumping on koopas, especially when that whole sense of 'empowerment' is handled so well at the start. Maybe it's like that after you play through it half a dozen times (although I still get enjoyment from it - it HAS to be set to Hard), but then some people say even sex gets old after a while...

[soulslicer]

well, these are my thoughts.

the main reason why pc gaming is dying is the escalating costs of the hardware required. People would rather turn to less expensive consoles like ps3 x360, for even better graphics ect. even the PS3 can now have linux a mouse and a keyboard installed into it and used like a pc. furthermore, ati and nvidia are always upping their graphics cards (mostly by keep on adding more unified shaders and upping mem. and clockrate) so developers must keep up with this like said b4. i think the only thing keeping the PC gaming market alive is the easy access of the INTERNET and MULTIPLAYER GAMING. now even that is being taken over by consoles. the only reason why consoles are winning is cos their cheap and mass produced and there is no competition.

[CptStern]

People would rather turn to less expensive consoles like ps3 x360, for even better graphics ect.

pc graphics surpassed console graphics before the ps3 was even released ..the debut of the 8800 easily outpowered anything in ps3 or xbox360

[Warbie]

I do think HL2 could have been meaner with the ammo, in order to force you to run away sometimes (other than just gunships and striders when there's no rocket crate around). But I don't think it's as bad that it can be compared to jumping on koopas, especially when that whole sense of 'empowerment' is handled so well at the start.

I certainly agree about the ammo, and think you make a good point about feeling empowered when you get a weapon at the start (I absolutely love the first 2 chapters in HL2 btw - the best video gaming gets), but it's more the hit reactions, or lack of them, that bug me most about Hl2. There's no flinch and very little feedback - you fill an enemy with lead and they just absorb the bullets. More like holding a button down untill the Combine fall over than shooting them.

I'm not just picking on HL2 here btw - this is the case in 95% of all fps. At least in Golden Eye if you shoot someone in the foot they hop about in pain, or limp away dragging their leg. Some real power behind each bullet makes all the difference - for a single pistol shot to the shoulder to spin someone around and stagger forward.

I'd prefer less encounters in a fps in favour of ones that were more memorable and visceral. Rather than squirting 10000's of bullets everywhere - make each one count, value your ammo. Why do fps still continue to give us weapon after weapon, each one more powerful and crazy than the last, when a single pistol can make you feel like a god? (again with Golden Eye - the weakest handgun feels more powerful than the meatiest machine gun in HL2)

This doesn't mean fps should become uber realistic or over the top gory, far from it. If anything the experience could become more film like, especially considering some of the advancements in ragdolls and animation we're seeing today (EA are doing some interesting stuff). I want to shoot someone who's hiding behind a chair - to see the bullet rip through the fabric, make a thunk sound as it hits the target, to hear a convincing yelp and thud as he falls to the ground, and then maybe, once the fight has finished, to follow the blood trail into a corner to see where he dragged himself off to die.

The gunplay and the weapons should be as much a star as anything else in a fps.

[Samon]

I think there's certainly some truth in what you say Warbie; I've had the same experience in Condemned. The affect your bullets have on people is something I'd certainly like to see expanded upon in the future, and how you work this into visceral and exciting combat. But when I say my favourite two chapters in HL2: Episode 1, are the two without any real weapon, what does that say? I've always tagged HL2 as the best 'shooter' ever made, but really, it isn't the shooting I play for. Now I'm not critical of the gunplay, it's simple, but it's fun, and I don't really have any complaints; but I don't play HL2 for visceral combat: I play it for the gameplay (combat is only a factor).

Each scene elevates the gameplay to a new level to the point where you aren't really shooting anymore. You play each scenario differently, it changes on a whim and I find myself doing more in on chapter of that game than I've done in other games in their entirety. Valve seem to be moving away from the idea that the gun should be the core of the FPS, and are involving the player in the game world through other means and establishing entirely new lines of play. I believe this is a direction more shooters should be going in, not all, but more. There's so much more you can do with an FP perspective and I really think Valve are tapping into that. I don't believe we have to subscribe to a specific thing when developing (as Warren Spector stated) simply because we might think we've hit the peak of something. Really, we haven't.

I'll get round to your post Stern.

[CptStern]

warbie and Samon, you guys need to try Stalker, I dont think you'll be disappointed


finally picked it up last night ..played for a couple of hours and was completely immerssed to the point where I literally jumped and fired my shotgun into thin air after bumping into a box in a deserted town ..I was looking for a place to make a stand against whatever animal was following me making a disturbing howling sound that seemed to come from every direction ...they were closing their circle of death as they approached my hiding spot, and I was slowly wetting my pants ...


the game is freaky immersive

[Beerdude26]

That's true. A big part of Call Of Duty 2's rather repetitive gameplay was ironed out by the nice (albeit motion-captured) animations when an ally or enemy was shot/wounded. Well, for me it was at least :p

[Samon]

warbie and Samon, you guys need to try Stalker, I dont think you'll be disappointed

Yeah, I've been meaning to. I need some more monies to roll in the first though. :p

[Gray Fox]

Yeah, I've been meaning to. I need some more monies to roll in the first though. :p
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8383/pirate2ng3.gif

[CptStern]

for shame! the freakin thread is about pc piracy and even mentions Stalker! have you no conscience man!?!



samon: do what you want cause a pirate is free ..you are a pirate

[Warbie]

But when I say my favourite two chapters in HL2: Episode 1, are the two without any real weapon, what does that say?

A few things - that Valve have created a wonderfully well realised world that's a joy to explore, and that the combat hasn't progressed since the orignal HL.

Valve seem to be moving away from the idea that the gun should be the core of the FPS, and are involving the player in the game world through other means and establishing entirely new lines of play.

I don't think so, it's just an area they have neglected. By improving gunplay (which there is massive scope for) the player will be involved to greater extent - there will be more tension, excitement, a better atmosphere, a more believable situation. This goes beyond combat - consitency an extremely important part in creating a convincing gameworld. If you can tear through a fence with a machine gun in HL2, then why do bullets have so little affect on Combine? It's as bad as invisible walls and windows that don't break because they're textures.

Get it done right and each attention to detail, each 'entirely new line of play', will be enhanced. The story will be all the more powerful and feel more real for it. It should be shocking, even disturbing, to shoot someone in a video game. It should pose interesting moral questions. Violence is currently shrugged off and as a result has very little impact. If fps want to grow up then shooting someone needs to feel brutal.


warbie and Samon, you guys need to try Stalker, I dont think you'll be disappointed

I'll get right to it :)

[99.vikram]

a persistent world where the totality of your actions influences the game somewhat and not in such a way that it ruins the pure narrative of the story ..which is sort of the point of a "on the rails" game ..without the rails driving the story forward it often stumbles forward and even loses momentum ..
An open-ended structure has many disadvantages other than "lack of impetus to move forward". First, in an open ended game it would be impossible for me to experience everything the game has to offer in one playthrough. Many people may enjoy playing an FPS five times over, but many others dont. Another disadvantage is that open-ended narrative destroys the cinematic experience of a game - a good game, like a good movie, is well paced and has exciting bits and slow bits. If a game was truly open ended, there would be no way for the dev to ensure that the gamer doesn't get an overdose of some elements. For example, I lost interest in Oblivion mainly because I felt it was too slow. Someone else might have found it too fast.

Thirdly, a good game must be centred around the player rather than the world. Again, I'll take the example of Oblivion. The developers probably spent a lot of time thinking about how to make the world seem as real as possible, but it was a wasted effort because in the end it was too predictable to resemble the real world. If it had been made as an on-rails game, the experience could have been more unique and personal.

My point is, if on-rails is easier and gives better results, why change for the sake of change?

...my point is that open ended sandbox/persistant worlds are currently in their infancy ..there's so much more they can do, especially when it comes to plot driven content
Linear games are also in their infancy.
So much can be done to make linear games movielike and emotional, but no one has tried it yet.

I agree, that's why I said HL2 was unique as a roller coaster ride ..but it's the exception rather than the rule ..far too many fps play exactly the same way as their next competitor ..
Only because industry leaders like Id refuse to explore the medium further.

agreed HL2 is the exception to the rule, I cant see too many developers toping it in those respects
If FPS devs had some imagination, HL2 would be the rule.

but HL2 allows some choice..not every encounter plays out the same way ..not so with most fps where you know exactly what will spawn around which corner
This is the developers' mistake. Not a fault of linear games.

You also brought up Deus Ex. It's an excellent game, but it has nothing on linear games. Non-linear games make for good gameplay, but the story development is hurt by the lack of control.

most devs cant afford the luxury nor have the desire to do that ...most game sales are made within the first month ..by then word of mouth is enough to slow sales;
Then we need more devs like Valve who tried something risky just because they wanted to.

i cant comment on MGS but HL2 imho is the pinnacle of where on the rails gaing can go, I cant see it evolving much more beyond that; they've already made the puppet's strings invisible
Oh, I disagree. So much can be done in a tightly orchestrated game that no nonlinear game can ever pull off. Apart from tweaks to the gameplay mechanic, like Prey's, there can be scripted sequences and set pieces fine tuned for maximum awesomeness. Nothing can be fine tuned in an open ended game, because you never know where the player will come from, and where he's going.

yes but consoles seem to have taken a less is more even though its's not more approach when it comes to fps ..
Consoles are designed to support game modes that are already popular. If anybody wants to experiment with gaming, they are going to have to do it on PC. Established games go to console; newer, radical games must first prove themselves on PC.

[Shadow-warrior]

The only thing killing PC gaming is the crap developers who release buggy and overly high spec games which end up forcing people to buy consoles out of frustration.

[Leviticus]

I hate how novelty-oriented the shooter genre has become. Developers choose to set themselves apart with technical details that have little to no effect on how fun the game actually is. Doom 3 is a fantastic example of a shooter that got away with ancient gameplay through polygons and facial animations. Critics should've eaten it alive, but instead it got some of the highest marks of the year. The trend is spreading to other genres too. Neverwinter Nights 2 shipped with less content than the first and identical gameplay. Oblivion actually has fewer open-ended elements than Morrowind and what is probably the worst combat I've ever seen in an RPG (Don't get me wrong, Oblivion was a good game, but how little the gameplay changed from Morrowind was disappointing).

All of this makes praise for companies like Relic who make games with modern graphics and interesting gameplay so warranted. If it weren't for them and a few others PC gaming would be dieing.

[Solaris]

I think I agree with all sides here, I can definitely see where they're coming from.

I share Sterns dream of an open ended world where you can do what you want, but there's still a central story you see developing. I think Haflife2 really succeeded in creating a world that felt very real, perhaps a little too focused on Gordon, but the way the story was revealed was very interesting indeed. There were no silly cut scenes with dialogs, no one saying "What's that? The combine are taking over the rebel base?" over the phone. It was done very well.

I personally don't have a problem with the way the story's done in halflife2. Just one issue is the path you have to follow when you progress through the game. It feels sometimes you have to follow the same path within a meter, especially in urban areas, you have no choice where you go to get to your objective. Even just having a few different streets to go down, with different challenges on each street would improve the game.

The strings are obvious when your in a city, but every path is blocked except one that leads you right through the city. It's good that instead of an invisible force field blocking you they have a locked door or whatever, but it still needs improving. Hopefully ep2 will have worked on that.