PC gaming, piracy and the death of pc fps

[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]

Pc Gaming

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.

 

[Asknoone]

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

 

[Asknoone]

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.

 

[Gray Fox]

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

 

[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.