H
Hunchback
Guest
Here's the thing - I'm hoping that HL2 will dissapoint me....here's why.
All the revolutionary games released on the PC (Wolf 3D, Quake, Deus Ex, Black & White etc) create a model in which later games in a similar vein improve upon and explore. This does not necessarily make them the best example of their type (re: doom over wolf,) only the first and most striking. After a few years of a sucessful model being honed to its capabilities, there comes another title, another progression, that re-invigorates the genre, raising the bar again only to further be imitated and improved until the next revolutionary game comes along.
The original Half-life was a revolutionary game, so much so that even 5/6 years on its gameplay mechanics such as (semi) interactive set-pieces are still being used in games today (Call of Duty). But the thing about creating a game that's so far ahead of the rest, in terms of scope and ideas, is that it also highlights its own limitations. In Half-life this can be seen in the multiple Barney's and scientists, the 'old-style' Xen levels, its restrictive linerarity of the plot...
...And so HL2 is going to come out in a few months, and hopefully it's going to blow us all away. But because it's promising to be the first 'next-generation' fps (D3 promising i think to be the greatest 'old style' fps) then HL2 is going to have a few things wrong with it, or at least suggest further areas of improvement that no doubt other games (including HL3) will address. If it didn't it wouldn't be the revolutionary game we've all been waiting 6 years for.
And so I guess the point of my post is this - what area's of HL2 will suggest improvement?
While it's obviously difficult to say much about it until the game comes out - my worry is that from the looks of things, HL2's story is about 10 x as intricate than it's orginal, the supporting characters have increased in both number and depth, the facial animations look to set a new era in emotional impact for the gamer....and yet Gordon is still, to all inents and purposes, a mute.
I've heard the reasons for this - so that the gamer can feel greater identification with the character s/he's playing- but i wonder whether having a silent main character throughout such an epic and involving story will just feel....stupid. Not only that but restrictive to the story and ultimately to the player's involvement in the game. Choosing dialogue from a seletion, or hearing my character speak 'without' me, has never detracted from my involvment in other games before - why should it in a fps?
Anyway rant over - what do you all think?
Cheers,
d
All the revolutionary games released on the PC (Wolf 3D, Quake, Deus Ex, Black & White etc) create a model in which later games in a similar vein improve upon and explore. This does not necessarily make them the best example of their type (re: doom over wolf,) only the first and most striking. After a few years of a sucessful model being honed to its capabilities, there comes another title, another progression, that re-invigorates the genre, raising the bar again only to further be imitated and improved until the next revolutionary game comes along.
The original Half-life was a revolutionary game, so much so that even 5/6 years on its gameplay mechanics such as (semi) interactive set-pieces are still being used in games today (Call of Duty). But the thing about creating a game that's so far ahead of the rest, in terms of scope and ideas, is that it also highlights its own limitations. In Half-life this can be seen in the multiple Barney's and scientists, the 'old-style' Xen levels, its restrictive linerarity of the plot...
...And so HL2 is going to come out in a few months, and hopefully it's going to blow us all away. But because it's promising to be the first 'next-generation' fps (D3 promising i think to be the greatest 'old style' fps) then HL2 is going to have a few things wrong with it, or at least suggest further areas of improvement that no doubt other games (including HL3) will address. If it didn't it wouldn't be the revolutionary game we've all been waiting 6 years for.
And so I guess the point of my post is this - what area's of HL2 will suggest improvement?
While it's obviously difficult to say much about it until the game comes out - my worry is that from the looks of things, HL2's story is about 10 x as intricate than it's orginal, the supporting characters have increased in both number and depth, the facial animations look to set a new era in emotional impact for the gamer....and yet Gordon is still, to all inents and purposes, a mute.
I've heard the reasons for this - so that the gamer can feel greater identification with the character s/he's playing- but i wonder whether having a silent main character throughout such an epic and involving story will just feel....stupid. Not only that but restrictive to the story and ultimately to the player's involvement in the game. Choosing dialogue from a seletion, or hearing my character speak 'without' me, has never detracted from my involvment in other games before - why should it in a fps?
Anyway rant over - what do you all think?
Cheers,
d
