Beat HL2:Ep2 on Thursday. Thought it played out pretty well, but it did get me thinking a bit.
Alyx is near death in the mines, but you're not rushed. At least there could've been a timer telling you how much time you had left to save her.
The story casts you as a hero to the resistance, but the level design gives you no choice but to be one. There's no way around it. Effectively, you're simply fighting from set piece to set piece to see what the next plot point is. Despite being a near messianic figure to these guys, you're really given little choice on how to shape the story.
Two of my favorite series when I was younger were Wing Commander and Panzer General. Both games provided a means that could allow you to lose through poor performance or bad choices. In the case of PG, you also had the ability to win "big" if you performed at an optimal level. Both games had branching mission trees. It would be kind of neat to see a level design in games like Half Life where each area had multiple exits to different levels.
Take for example: You and Alyx are helping the resistance in the city. Off in one direction, you hear a major gunfight with a strider -- a serious chance to lose a lot of health and ammo, but also give you a shot at saving the soldiers in the fight. Another direction could lead you to the rooftops and give you a better shot at the strider, but the soldiers might be killed as you get into position. A third direction could lead you away from the fight, avoiding the loss of health and ammo, but completing the mission (reach the Combine base).
The next level could be:
Path A: coming at the base the long way around, but chances are you were able to help enough soldiers escape -- Alyx and the resistance like you more and help out more.
Path B: The soldiers are dead, you likely didn't get there in time, but you did a good thing taking out the strider. Alyx continues to hero worship you, but there are fewer resistance forces to help.
Path C: You're at the base, but Alyx is less happy with you -- not helping as much as she could. Given enough "coward" routes, she might even abandon you as you try to find the easiest path to escape.
Once you've clearly chosen your level path, scripting could lock you into that direction, such as buildings or bridges collapsing behind you.
I think it would be cool that if a game cast you as the hero, you'd actually have the choice to be the hero and shape the story, rather than being a passenger on a roller coaster ride.
The biggest thing I see here would be a jump in installation space with the extra levels, but if the AI is loaded on level entry that might not be so intensive as the AI reacting to your choices on the fly during a mission.
Beat HL2:Ep2 on Thursday. Thought it played out pretty well, but it did get me thinking a bit.
Alyx is near death in the mines, but you're not rushed. At least there could've been a timer telling you how much time you had left to save her.
The story casts you as a hero to the resistance, but the level design gives you no choice but to be one. There's no way around it. Effectively, you're simply fighting from set piece to set piece to see what the next plot point is. Despite being a near messianic figure to these guys, you're really given little choice on how to shape the story.
The G-Man. He has an agenda and your his pawn. In fact, he says choice is only an illusion at the end of HL2.
Beat HL2:Ep2 on Thursday. Thought it played out pretty well, but it did get me thinking a bit.
Alyx is near death in the mines, but you're not rushed. At least there could've been a timer telling you how much time you had left to save her.
The story casts you as a hero to the resistance, but the level design gives you no choice but to be one. There's no way around it. Effectively, you're simply fighting from set piece to set piece to see what the next plot point is. Despite being a near messianic figure to these guys, you're really given little choice on how to shape the story.
The G-Man. He has an agenda and your his pawn. In fact, he says choice is only an illusion at the end of HL2.
Not to mention that timers rarely add any fun. They usually produce stress. Instead of admiring and enjoying the level it would be all "OH FUCK GOTTA MOVE".
All the G-Man does in HL2 is drop you off in the train. From that point on, there is no evidence of being compelled to do anything the G-Man or the others ask you to (but you're not given a choice to do otherwise by the nature of the level design). The G-Man may have an agenda, but the game doesn't show your reasons for attempting it very well. You're not shown at any point the consequences of not doing the G-Man's bidding, nor are you allowed to explore trying to escape the Combine or the G-Man.
EDIT: Considering how important Alyx is in the story, shouldn't there be a sense of urgency in trying to save her?
Doronron on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
All the G-Man does in HL2 is drop you off in the train. From that point on, there is no evidence of being compelled to do anything the G-Man or the others ask you to (but you're not given a choice to do otherwise by the nature of the level design). The G-Man may have an agenda, but the game doesn't show your reasons for attempting it very well. You're not shown at any point the consequences of not doing the G-Man's bidding, nor are you allowed to explore trying to escape the Combine or the G-Man.
EDIT: Considering how important Alyx is in the story, shouldn't there be a sense of urgency in trying to save her?
The G-man is shown to be constantly just ahead/following you. You can even see him talking to Cubbage right before you get to NLO. So yeah, there is evidence that he's making sure you stay on track.
Alyx is near death in the mines, but you're not rushed. At least there could've been a timer telling you how much time you had left to save her.
The vorts were just keeping here in stasis until you showed up with the magic healing mojo.
Edit: And the whole "I can't choose whether or not I want to be a hero" thing? Welcome to first person shooters (Halo, Rainbow 6, Call of Duty, etc). If you want choice go play Deus Ex or Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.
All the G-Man does in HL2 is drop you off in the train. From that point on, there is no evidence of being compelled to do anything the G-Man or the others ask you to (but you're not given a choice to do otherwise by the nature of the level design). The G-Man may have an agenda, but the game doesn't show your reasons for attempting it very well. You're not shown at any point the consequences of not doing the G-Man's bidding, nor are you allowed to explore trying to escape the Combine or the G-Man.
EDIT: Considering how important Alyx is in the story, shouldn't there be a sense of urgency in trying to save her?
Normally I would agree, but you can do it entirely with atmosphere rather than an oft-frustrating timer. Episode 2 doesn't really, which is a shame. The end of Mass Effect though... No timer, but the sense of urgency the story (and scenery) produces for you... Holy fuck. It's probably one of the most cinematic gaming moments I've ever had, and you're in complete control of it.
Halo is for rambunctious actioning goodness: it's for epic setpiece battles against monstrous hordes of enemies that require me to think on gun, melee, and grenade with equal aplomb. It's for driving a huge fucking tank against an enormous alien battle machine and tearing it to shreds with a huge cannon. It's for pulling a machinegun off a turret and carrying it around, gunning down aliens in a massive clusterfuck battle. It's a twitch game where a mistake can be solved by taking cover, waiting for health to regenerate, and then popping back into the fray. It is, in other words, shitloads of fun, but like an action movie, that's about all it is.
Half-Life 2 is for thinking: it's for carrying an automatic turret around with the gravity gun and watch it kill enemies while you wave it around in their general direction. It's for killing a man with a computer monitor and beating his friend to death with a crowbar, then grabbing a grenade and bombing out some snipers that have your friend pinned down on the roof. Halo never made me jump out of my skin or fill me with dread, but Half-Life did. It constantly put me in "the zone," whereby you reach moments in which you need to take a moment to step back, take a deep breath, and remind yourself, "It's just a game. It can't hurt you for real."
Halo requires just as much thought as Half-life 2.
Halo requires just as much thought as Half-life 2.
This is true, but they are different kinds of thought, which is interesting. You couldn't play Halo like Half-Life; you couldn't play Half-Life like Halo.
Beat HL2:Ep2 on Thursday. Thought it played out pretty well, but it did get me thinking a bit.
Alyx is near death in the mines, but you're not rushed. At least there could've been a timer telling you how much time you had left to save her.
The story casts you as a hero to the resistance, but the level design gives you no choice but to be one. There's no way around it. Effectively, you're simply fighting from set piece to set piece to see what the next plot point is. Despite being a near messianic figure to these guys, you're really given little choice on how to shape the story.
Two of my favorite series when I was younger were Wing Commander and Panzer General. Both games provided a means that could allow you to lose through poor performance or bad choices. In the case of PG, you also had the ability to win "big" if you performed at an optimal level. Both games had branching mission trees. It would be kind of neat to see a level design in games like Half Life where each area had multiple exits to different levels.
Take for example: You and Alyx are helping the resistance in the city. Off in one direction, you hear a major gunfight with a strider -- a serious chance to lose a lot of health and ammo, but also give you a shot at saving the soldiers in the fight. Another direction could lead you to the rooftops and give you a better shot at the strider, but the soldiers might be killed as you get into position. A third direction could lead you away from the fight, avoiding the loss of health and ammo, but completing the mission (reach the Combine base).
The next level could be:
Path A: coming at the base the long way around, but chances are you were able to help enough soldiers escape -- Alyx and the resistance like you more and help out more.
Path B: The soldiers are dead, you likely didn't get there in time, but you did a good thing taking out the strider. Alyx continues to hero worship you, but there are fewer resistance forces to help.
Path C: You're at the base, but Alyx is less happy with you -- not helping as much as she could. Given enough "coward" routes, she might even abandon you as you try to find the easiest path to escape.
Once you've clearly chosen your level path, scripting could lock you into that direction, such as buildings or bridges collapsing behind you.
I think it would be cool that if a game cast you as the hero, you'd actually have the choice to be the hero and shape the story, rather than being a passenger on a roller coaster ride.
The biggest thing I see here would be a jump in installation space with the extra levels, but if the AI is loaded on level entry that might not be so intensive as the AI reacting to your choices on the fly during a mission.
That would be lame because this is Half-Life. Not S.T.A.L.K.E.R. That's the game you're thinking of. Go play it for your branching mission BS. I wants my Half-Life.
Also, the ideas you bring forth sounds like what would happen if Bioware had made the game or something. I just don't get why people play a game and say, "Wow that was fun, but I would have done this to make it MORE FUN!" It doesn't make sense. If you enjoyed it, why nitpick it?
Also, what games (other than RPGs) do you have the choice to be Hero/Anti-Hero? I can't really think of any recent ones because giving the player too much freedom in how the game pans out makes for a less cohesive experience. You would end up with more bugs and a less polished game, OR much longer development times. Let's face it, what Half-Life fan wants to wait longer than they already do for some half-assed 'choice' mechanic?
And to reiterate what others have said, timers are fucking gay.
Typical. A person brings up a possible idea that might be just a little bit different, and half a dozen others jump in to piss on them. This is why we can't have nice discussions. And you wonder why most geeks have such a social stigma, they can't accept others might have differing opinions from them. Good job, guys.
Why is every game ever compared to Halo then? Because it is popular? Or because it is a quality game and a benchmark for nearly all console first person shooters of the last 6 years?
Why is every game ever compared to Halo then? Because it is popular? Or because it is a quality game and a benchmark for nearly all console first person shooters of the last 6 years?
Because it is popular and many people played it. Relatively few people have played a game like Timesplitters so few people are going to compare games to it.
Why is every game ever compared to Halo then? Because it is popular? Or because it is a quality game and a benchmark for nearly all console first person shooters of the last 6 years?
Because it is popular and many people played it. Relatively few people have played a game like Timesplitters so few people are going to compare games to it.
But Halo is not really anything like Half Life 2 other than it is first person and has guns.
The comparison is pointless.
A better game to compare Half Life 2 to would be Call of Duty
Especially when people arent actually 'comparing' HL2 to Halo, just competing them.
Saying halo is boring, or that half life 2 is more fun isnt comparing them. its ranking them. and is beyond retarded.
Typical. A person brings up a possible idea that might be just a little bit different, and half a dozen others jump in to piss on them. This is why we can't have nice discussions. And you wonder why most geeks have such a social stigma, they can't accept others might have differing opinions from them. Good job, guys.
What? The guy's suggestions were radically different from not only the Half Life formula, but nearly every other shooter available. That's not "just a little bit different." And just because it's different and presumably new doesn't mean it will work. Us laughing a guy off the page is the same response he would get if he brought it up to the developers.
HL2 is good, but it could be better. It's good to discuss how things could be better. That's how progress happens. It doesn't detract from our enjoyment of the game, but people thinking how they could make something better leads to more enjoyable games in the future. If you don't want to discuss how you can make a game better, you should go sign up with NMA. They love living in the past.
Szechuanosaurus on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Branching missions are a good idea on paper. But they take time and money away from making the core game good. And most of the time are essentially illusionary anyway. See both Deus Ex games.
And it's not really a new idea. People throw it out all the time in every genre. It's good for some but not so good for all. And it's mostly a pipe dream.
HL2 is good, but it could be better. It's good to discuss how things could be better. That's how progress happens. It doesn't detract from our enjoyment of the game, but people thinking how they could make something better leads to more enjoyable games in the future. If you don't want to discuss how you can make a game better, you should go sign up with NMA. They love living in the past.
I don't really like branching paths when they lead to different outcomes because I like to get everything my first time through via exploring and stuff, but if I could only choose one path of 3 (or more) that would really frustrate me. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
Branching missions are a good idea on paper. But they take time and money away from making the core game good. And most of the time are essentially illusionary anyway. See both Deus Ex games.
And it's not really a new idea. People throw it out all the time in every genre. It's good for some but not so good for all. And it's mostly a pipe dream.
Every single design element of a game is illusionary. The thing is, the illusions can sometimes be fun. The outline proposal described is perfectly achievable. You probably aren't going to have the story branching down wildly different arcs, at least not until you're at the end game, but you can certainly throw in a bit of variety to the details of the story along the way. I don't think anybody said it was a new idea, either. It's a tried, tested and proven idea that is rapidly becoming de rigeur for FPS games. If you think it's a pipe dream...man, have you played any games other than HL2 in the past ten years?
HL2 is good, but it could be better. It's good to discuss how things could be better. That's how progress happens. It doesn't detract from our enjoyment of the game, but people thinking how they could make something better leads to more enjoyable games in the future. If you don't want to discuss how you can make a game better, you should go sign up with NMA. They love living in the past.
I don't really like branching paths when they lead to different outcomes because I like to get everything my first time through via exploring and stuff, but if I could only choose one path of 3 (or more) that would really frustrate me. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
I'm sure you're not either. There are also plenty who would disagree though. What are you gunna do?
Szechuanosaurus on
0
Options
augustwhere you come from is goneRegistered Userregular
Branching missions are a good idea on paper. But they take time and money away from making the core game good. And most of the time are essentially illusionary anyway. See both Deus Ex games.
And it's not really a new idea. People throw it out all the time in every genre. It's good for some but not so good for all. And it's mostly a pipe dream.
Every single design element of a game is illusionary. The thing is, the illusions can sometimes be fun. The outline proposal described is perfectly achievable. You probably aren't going to have the story branching down wildly different arcs, at least not until you're at the end game, but you can certainly throw in a bit of variety to the details of the story along the way. I don't think anybody said it was a new idea, either. It's a tried, tested and proven idea that is rapidly becoming de rigeur for FPS games. If you think it's a pipe dream...man, have you played any games other than HL2 in the past ten years?
The only fps game I've played with significant branching in the last ten years is the Deus Ex games. And the second one at least suffered from it. What games do you have in mind?
Branching missions are a good idea on paper. But they take time and money away from making the core game good. And most of the time are essentially illusionary anyway. See both Deus Ex games.
And it's not really a new idea. People throw it out all the time in every genre. It's good for some but not so good for all. And it's mostly a pipe dream.
Every single design element of a game is illusionary. The thing is, the illusions can sometimes be fun. The outline proposal described is perfectly achievable. You probably aren't going to have the story branching down wildly different arcs, at least not until you're at the end game, but you can certainly throw in a bit of variety to the details of the story along the way. I don't think anybody said it was a new idea, either. It's a tried, tested and proven idea that is rapidly becoming de rigeur for FPS games. If you think it's a pipe dream...man, have you played any games other than HL2 in the past ten years?
The only fps game I've played with significant branching in the last ten years is the Deus Ex games. And the second one at least suffered from it. What games do you have in mind?
Who specified significant branching? (Or FPS for that matter?) The proposed example branch for HL2 did nothing to alter the overall storyline or objectives, it just altered minor details like whether you were fighting by yourself or whether you had some friends along to help. Hell, Deus Ex doesn't even have a significantly branching storyline. What it does have is options when meeting your objectives. As does Far Cry. The Rainbow Six series gives you mission objectives and then leaves it up to you to plan your route of attack, including the routes and signals for the other teams assaulting the building (at least they used to, I understand they are more arcadey of late). And Stalker, which also has pretty significantly branching story lines. And Operation: Flashpoint. And Brothers In Arms. In fact, most modern FPS games give the player more freedom of expression, even within a rigid plot line, than HL2 does.
Why is this important? Because it gives the player ownership of the results, which leads to a more satisfying gaming experience.
Also, Deus Ex: Invisible War didn't suffer from branching plot lines, it suffered from being a hilarious pile of shit. I'm co-playing it alongside HL2 at the moment since they're both in steam and I bought it along with the original a few months ago. I tell you what, it doesn't do many things right, that Deus Ex: Invisible War.
HL2 is good, but it could be better. It's good to discuss how things could be better. That's how progress happens. It doesn't detract from our enjoyment of the game, but people thinking how they could make something better leads to more enjoyable games in the future. If you don't want to discuss how you can make a game better, you should go sign up with NMA. They love living in the past.
But the thing is, the idea doesn't make the game BETTER, it just makes it DIFFERENT.
It's like me saying "You know what HL2 should have? Levels and stats. You can level up and then improve your accuracy or your health or whatever".
That's not an improvement, it's a lateral move. It's changing the game to a different style and type of game. Which is what that other suggestion is doing.
HL2 is good, but it could be better. It's good to discuss how things could be better. That's how progress happens. It doesn't detract from our enjoyment of the game, but people thinking how they could make something better leads to more enjoyable games in the future. If you don't want to discuss how you can make a game better, you should go sign up with NMA. They love living in the past.
But the thing is, the idea doesn't make the game BETTER, it just makes it DIFFERENT.
It's like me saying "You know what HL2 should have? Levels and stats. You can level up and then improve your accuracy or your health or whatever".
That's not an improvement, it's a lateral move. It's changing the game to a different style and type of game. Which is what that other suggestion is doing.
Not necessarily. I mean, it definitely makes it different, but not that much. It may or may not make it better. A lot of people feel HL2 is painfully linear, so some minor tweaks to give you some options as you progress down it's corridors should alleviate that problem. It might not make it better for everybody, I can understand some gamers like the comfort in knowing that any time they play a Half Life game it's going to be reassuring unsurprising. So yeah, it'd probably make it better for some and worse for others. But that doesn't mean it's an unthinkable option. Bethesda knowingly and willingly choose to say 'fuck you' to the most vocal fan base when designing Fallout 3. Blizzard are doing likewise with Starcraft II (in a smaller way, but with a much bigger hardcore fanbase).
HL2 is good, but it could be better. It's good to discuss how things could be better. That's how progress happens. It doesn't detract from our enjoyment of the game, but people thinking how they could make something better leads to more enjoyable games in the future. If you don't want to discuss how you can make a game better, you should go sign up with NMA. They love living in the past.
But the thing is, the idea doesn't make the game BETTER, it just makes it DIFFERENT.
It's like me saying "You know what HL2 should have? Levels and stats. You can level up and then improve your accuracy or your health or whatever".
That's not an improvement, it's a lateral move. It's changing the game to a different style and type of game. Which is what that other suggestion is doing.
Not necessarily. I mean, it definitely makes it different, but not that much. It may or may not make it better. A lot of people feel HL2 is painfully linear, so some minor tweaks to give you some options as you progress down it's corridors should alleviate that problem. It might not make it better for everybody, I can understand some gamers like the comfort in knowing that any time they play a Half Life game it's going to be reassuring unsurprising. So yeah, it'd probably make it better for some and worse for others. But that doesn't mean it's an unthinkable option. Bethesda knowingly and willingly choose to say 'fuck you' to the most vocal fan base when designing Fallout 3. Blizzard are doing likewise with Starcraft II (in a smaller way, but with a much bigger hardcore fanbase).
Yeah, but it's not the fan base that's clamoring for the way HL is made. It's a deliberate design decision.
Half-Life 2 is a narrative. It's like ... like your playing a movie. That's the point of it. To present an incredible cinematic type experience that YOU are part of. That's why you don't speak and can't see yourself. And that's why it's very linear. (although it's only as linear as 90% of the other FPSs.*)
But it's fa from PAINFULLY linear. It's no more linear then (almost) any other FPS.
* There's essentially 3 kinds of FPS.
Non-Linear: Think STALKER. Or at least, what I understand of it (haven't gotten around to playing it yet). You can go anywhere and do whatever you want. Not many of these.
Free Form Linear: Deus Ex, FarCry, Crysis. You've got set objectives (essentially hoops you've got to jump through), but you can approach them from almost any angle.
Linear: Everything else, from Halo to Half-Life. Same thing as above, but more hoops closer together. They push you down a certain path. You can deal with situations how you wish, sorta. But in the end, your always being bottle-necked down the same path. This allows the developer to create better and more cinematic set-pieces for you to participate in, since they always know where your coming from at that point.
Yeah, but it's not the fan base that's clamoring for the way HL is made. It's a deliberate design decision.
All major design decisions are based, ultimately, on what will be most profitable. That's not completely true, but it is largely so. If the fanbase is big enough, design decisions are made based on what they want. If another market is bigger, designers will tend to look towards what will sell to them instead. Competitively, this is why design houses tend to copy and attempt to out-do each other. If FPS x has 6 guns, our FPS y better have 7 otherwise there's another reason for our market to buy FPS x over FPS y (design decisions like this actually happened in the FPS genre during it's darkest days in the late 90s, thankfully we now live in more enlightened times, although the principle is still intact).
Nuts. I've finished Episode 1 and Episode 2 still has 40% to download. Didn't think it'd be over that quickly. Ah well, back to Invisible War for chuckles.
Yeah, but it's not the fan base that's clamoring for the way HL is made. It's a deliberate design decision.
All major design decisions are based, ultimately, on what will be most profitable. That's not completely true, but it is largely so.
That's not really true, though. You've sort of got it backwards; big design decisions are rarely made on what would be most profitable, though concepts that come down from management often are - "We need another Gears of War for fourth quarter 2009, and it needs to be angstier!" - Rather, design decisions which are seen as detrimental to market appeal are culled. The motivation for Valve's decision, I think, is based more on fitting into the Half-Life franchise smoothly and building on what they know works and can be improved.
Yeah, but it's not the fan base that's clamoring for the way HL is made. It's a deliberate design decision.
All major design decisions are based, ultimately, on what will be most profitable. That's not completely true, but it is largely so.
That's not really true, though. You've sort of got it backwards; big design decisions are rarely made on what would be most profitable, though concepts that come down from management often are - "We need another Gears of War for fourth quarter 2009, and it needs to be angstier!" - Rather, design decisions which are seen as detrimental to market appeal are culled. The motivation for Valve's decision, I think, is based more on fitting into the Half-Life franchise smoothly and building on what they know works and can be improved.
Not to mention Valve is the opposite of most other game developers. They don't have any suits breathing down their necks demanding "Halo 3.1 clone to make money".
Yeah, but it's not the fan base that's clamoring for the way HL is made. It's a deliberate design decision.
All major design decisions are based, ultimately, on what will be most profitable. That's not completely true, but it is largely so.
That's not really true, though. You've sort of got it backwards; big design decisions are rarely made on what would be most profitable, though concepts that come down from management often are - "We need another Gears of War for fourth quarter 2009, and it needs to be angstier!" - Rather, design decisions which are seen as detrimental to market appeal are culled. The motivation for Valve's decision, I think, is based more on fitting into the Half-Life franchise smoothly and building on what they know works and can be improved.
Not to mention Valve is the opposite of most other game developers. They don't have any suits breathing down their necks demanding "Halo 3.1 clone to make money".
Valve have more freedom than many but don't for one second think that they aren't primarily concerned with turning a sizeable profit. In fact, when you consider their business strategy - bypassing publishers to retain a bigger cut for themselves, building as much as they can within one engine to minimise development costs, contracting that engine out for other designers, focusing primarily on an existing IP for revenue and pushing other games on the back of it - they're potentially driven more by money than other developers because the profitability of everything they do is all the more urgent and apparent without a publisher as a buffer. Couple that with the fact that in essence, they are now a publisher themselves - not only for their own IPs but for other design houses as well - and it's ridiculous to think that money isn't the primary driving force behind everything Valve do. Somebodies gotta pay for those Krispy Kremes.
See, normally I'd agree with you, but one thing undermines your statement somewhat. Yes, Valve wants to make money. They're a company, so of course a profit is truly wonderful. But they make a profit by releasing games with a near Blizzard level of polish to them. Really, the amount of time between Half-Life 2 and Half-Life 2: Episode One shows me clearly that they not only want to make money, they want to make money by releasing a supremely high quality game. They've got a reputation for it now. Even if you really dislike the Half-Life 2 series, which some people have established already in no uncertain terms, there's still Portal, there's still Team Fortress 2, each of which is also an incredibly polished game. Valve is under no pressure to release any games, as they know that if they wait to get it right they'll have a huge financial success.
I never said that this urge to make money equates to them pumping out shite. The point was that it will unavoidably influence and inform design decisions. That doesn't mean it will corner them into making poor design decisions, but it will mean them choosing to make what they hope to be the more profitable design decisions. The decision to build Source was a design decision lead by market considerations - they needed a spanky new engine to make their game look and run beautifully so that people would coo at the demo and then buy the game. They wanted to take time over Episode 1 to ensure it was a high quality offering that would be well received by the press, get good reviews and thus sell well (all the more important considering they list all their games alongside a metascore in Steam).
The necessity to make money leads to good design decisions at Valve, I'm not disputing that. The point was that it will also lead to them developing and doing new things with their IPs because thats crucial in order to remain relevant and contemporary and if they don't do that then they eventually fall behind the competition and loose sales. They do cinematic linearity really well with HL2, but that element of the franchise is already looking stale and outdated by comparison to competitive products.
I didn't say they produce shite either, merely postulating that they don't release unpolished games. Though the terms can often be indistinguishable, the survival of a games company relies on them consistently releasing polished games. They don't even have to release them often, as long as they're polished it won't matter. Troika, for example, released wonderful games that were often rough as guts. Blizzard, on the other hand, has abandoned a nearly complete game in the past because they thought that it would damage their reputation for quality.
Valve is doing the same thing. Yes, making money tempers their design decisions in the games, but only in that they want to release something that gleams. Also, I think it's clear from Half-Life 2: Episode 2 that they've still got a hell of a lot of mileage to go from cinematic linearity. You might think it's getting stale, and all power to you, but Valve sold one hell of a lot of copies of the Orange Box. Half-Life 2 and it's Episodes have been a spectacular financial success, and unless Half-Life 2: Episode 3 is about Gordon waking up from the bad dream of the previous games and then solving physics problems for the next four hours, then they'll continue making a ludicrous amount of money.
Finally, Valve seem to be acutely aware of the potential problem you mentioned about having to constantly do new stuff. Here's the thing. From Half-Life 2, to Half-Life 2: Episode 1, to Half-Life 2: Episode 2, each has had a fantastic catalogue of unique sequences that the others didn't do. Given what's been set up for Half-Life 2: Episode 3, I believe they'll continue down this path.
Posts
The story casts you as a hero to the resistance, but the level design gives you no choice but to be one. There's no way around it. Effectively, you're simply fighting from set piece to set piece to see what the next plot point is. Despite being a near messianic figure to these guys, you're really given little choice on how to shape the story.
Two of my favorite series when I was younger were Wing Commander and Panzer General. Both games provided a means that could allow you to lose through poor performance or bad choices. In the case of PG, you also had the ability to win "big" if you performed at an optimal level. Both games had branching mission trees. It would be kind of neat to see a level design in games like Half Life where each area had multiple exits to different levels.
Take for example: You and Alyx are helping the resistance in the city. Off in one direction, you hear a major gunfight with a strider -- a serious chance to lose a lot of health and ammo, but also give you a shot at saving the soldiers in the fight. Another direction could lead you to the rooftops and give you a better shot at the strider, but the soldiers might be killed as you get into position. A third direction could lead you away from the fight, avoiding the loss of health and ammo, but completing the mission (reach the Combine base).
The next level could be:
Path A: coming at the base the long way around, but chances are you were able to help enough soldiers escape -- Alyx and the resistance like you more and help out more.
Path B: The soldiers are dead, you likely didn't get there in time, but you did a good thing taking out the strider. Alyx continues to hero worship you, but there are fewer resistance forces to help.
Path C: You're at the base, but Alyx is less happy with you -- not helping as much as she could. Given enough "coward" routes, she might even abandon you as you try to find the easiest path to escape.
Once you've clearly chosen your level path, scripting could lock you into that direction, such as buildings or bridges collapsing behind you.
I think it would be cool that if a game cast you as the hero, you'd actually have the choice to be the hero and shape the story, rather than being a passenger on a roller coaster ride.
The biggest thing I see here would be a jump in installation space with the extra levels, but if the AI is loaded on level entry that might not be so intensive as the AI reacting to your choices on the fly during a mission.
Not to mention that timers rarely add any fun. They usually produce stress. Instead of admiring and enjoying the level it would be all "OH FUCK GOTTA MOVE".
EDIT: Considering how important Alyx is in the story, shouldn't there be a sense of urgency in trying to save her?
Edit: And the whole "I can't choose whether or not I want to be a hero" thing? Welcome to first person shooters (Halo, Rainbow 6, Call of Duty, etc). If you want choice go play Deus Ex or Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines.
Normally I would agree, but you can do it entirely with atmosphere rather than an oft-frustrating timer. Episode 2 doesn't really, which is a shame. The end of Mass Effect though... No timer, but the sense of urgency the story (and scenery) produces for you... Holy fuck. It's probably one of the most cinematic gaming moments I've ever had, and you're in complete control of it.
Halo requires just as much thought as Half-life 2.
This is true, but they are different kinds of thought, which is interesting. You couldn't play Halo like Half-Life; you couldn't play Half-Life like Halo.
That would be lame because this is Half-Life. Not S.T.A.L.K.E.R. That's the game you're thinking of. Go play it for your branching mission BS. I wants my Half-Life.
Also, the ideas you bring forth sounds like what would happen if Bioware had made the game or something. I just don't get why people play a game and say, "Wow that was fun, but I would have done this to make it MORE FUN!" It doesn't make sense. If you enjoyed it, why nitpick it?
Also, what games (other than RPGs) do you have the choice to be Hero/Anti-Hero? I can't really think of any recent ones because giving the player too much freedom in how the game pans out makes for a less cohesive experience. You would end up with more bugs and a less polished game, OR much longer development times. Let's face it, what Half-Life fan wants to wait longer than they already do for some half-assed 'choice' mechanic?
And to reiterate what others have said, timers are fucking gay.
XBL - Follow Freeman
Because it is popular and many people played it. Relatively few people have played a game like Timesplitters so few people are going to compare games to it.
But Halo is not really anything like Half Life 2 other than it is first person and has guns.
The comparison is pointless.
A better game to compare Half Life 2 to would be Call of Duty
Especially when people arent actually 'comparing' HL2 to Halo, just competing them.
Saying halo is boring, or that half life 2 is more fun isnt comparing them. its ranking them. and is beyond retarded.
What? The guy's suggestions were radically different from not only the Half Life formula, but nearly every other shooter available. That's not "just a little bit different." And just because it's different and presumably new doesn't mean it will work. Us laughing a guy off the page is the same response he would get if he brought it up to the developers.
XBL - Follow Freeman
HL2 is good, but it could be better. It's good to discuss how things could be better. That's how progress happens. It doesn't detract from our enjoyment of the game, but people thinking how they could make something better leads to more enjoyable games in the future. If you don't want to discuss how you can make a game better, you should go sign up with NMA. They love living in the past.
And it's not really a new idea. People throw it out all the time in every genre. It's good for some but not so good for all. And it's mostly a pipe dream.
I don't really like branching paths when they lead to different outcomes because I like to get everything my first time through via exploring and stuff, but if I could only choose one path of 3 (or more) that would really frustrate me. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.
XBL - Follow Freeman
Every single design element of a game is illusionary. The thing is, the illusions can sometimes be fun. The outline proposal described is perfectly achievable. You probably aren't going to have the story branching down wildly different arcs, at least not until you're at the end game, but you can certainly throw in a bit of variety to the details of the story along the way. I don't think anybody said it was a new idea, either. It's a tried, tested and proven idea that is rapidly becoming de rigeur for FPS games. If you think it's a pipe dream...man, have you played any games other than HL2 in the past ten years?
I'm sure you're not either. There are also plenty who would disagree though. What are you gunna do?
The only fps game I've played with significant branching in the last ten years is the Deus Ex games. And the second one at least suffered from it. What games do you have in mind?
Who specified significant branching? (Or FPS for that matter?) The proposed example branch for HL2 did nothing to alter the overall storyline or objectives, it just altered minor details like whether you were fighting by yourself or whether you had some friends along to help. Hell, Deus Ex doesn't even have a significantly branching storyline. What it does have is options when meeting your objectives. As does Far Cry. The Rainbow Six series gives you mission objectives and then leaves it up to you to plan your route of attack, including the routes and signals for the other teams assaulting the building (at least they used to, I understand they are more arcadey of late). And Stalker, which also has pretty significantly branching story lines. And Operation: Flashpoint. And Brothers In Arms. In fact, most modern FPS games give the player more freedom of expression, even within a rigid plot line, than HL2 does.
Why is this important? Because it gives the player ownership of the results, which leads to a more satisfying gaming experience.
Also, Deus Ex: Invisible War didn't suffer from branching plot lines, it suffered from being a hilarious pile of shit. I'm co-playing it alongside HL2 at the moment since they're both in steam and I bought it along with the original a few months ago. I tell you what, it doesn't do many things right, that Deus Ex: Invisible War.
But the thing is, the idea doesn't make the game BETTER, it just makes it DIFFERENT.
It's like me saying "You know what HL2 should have? Levels and stats. You can level up and then improve your accuracy or your health or whatever".
That's not an improvement, it's a lateral move. It's changing the game to a different style and type of game. Which is what that other suggestion is doing.
Not necessarily. I mean, it definitely makes it different, but not that much. It may or may not make it better. A lot of people feel HL2 is painfully linear, so some minor tweaks to give you some options as you progress down it's corridors should alleviate that problem. It might not make it better for everybody, I can understand some gamers like the comfort in knowing that any time they play a Half Life game it's going to be reassuring unsurprising. So yeah, it'd probably make it better for some and worse for others. But that doesn't mean it's an unthinkable option. Bethesda knowingly and willingly choose to say 'fuck you' to the most vocal fan base when designing Fallout 3. Blizzard are doing likewise with Starcraft II (in a smaller way, but with a much bigger hardcore fanbase).
Yeah, but it's not the fan base that's clamoring for the way HL is made. It's a deliberate design decision.
Half-Life 2 is a narrative. It's like ... like your playing a movie. That's the point of it. To present an incredible cinematic type experience that YOU are part of. That's why you don't speak and can't see yourself. And that's why it's very linear. (although it's only as linear as 90% of the other FPSs.*)
But it's fa from PAINFULLY linear. It's no more linear then (almost) any other FPS.
* There's essentially 3 kinds of FPS.
Non-Linear: Think STALKER. Or at least, what I understand of it (haven't gotten around to playing it yet). You can go anywhere and do whatever you want. Not many of these.
Free Form Linear: Deus Ex, FarCry, Crysis. You've got set objectives (essentially hoops you've got to jump through), but you can approach them from almost any angle.
Linear: Everything else, from Halo to Half-Life. Same thing as above, but more hoops closer together. They push you down a certain path. You can deal with situations how you wish, sorta. But in the end, your always being bottle-necked down the same path. This allows the developer to create better and more cinematic set-pieces for you to participate in, since they always know where your coming from at that point.
All major design decisions are based, ultimately, on what will be most profitable. That's not completely true, but it is largely so. If the fanbase is big enough, design decisions are made based on what they want. If another market is bigger, designers will tend to look towards what will sell to them instead. Competitively, this is why design houses tend to copy and attempt to out-do each other. If FPS x has 6 guns, our FPS y better have 7 otherwise there's another reason for our market to buy FPS x over FPS y (design decisions like this actually happened in the FPS genre during it's darkest days in the late 90s, thankfully we now live in more enlightened times, although the principle is still intact).
Nuts. I've finished Episode 1 and Episode 2 still has 40% to download. Didn't think it'd be over that quickly. Ah well, back to Invisible War for chuckles.
That's not really true, though. You've sort of got it backwards; big design decisions are rarely made on what would be most profitable, though concepts that come down from management often are - "We need another Gears of War for fourth quarter 2009, and it needs to be angstier!" - Rather, design decisions which are seen as detrimental to market appeal are culled. The motivation for Valve's decision, I think, is based more on fitting into the Half-Life franchise smoothly and building on what they know works and can be improved.
Not to mention Valve is the opposite of most other game developers. They don't have any suits breathing down their necks demanding "Halo 3.1 clone to make money".
who wants to start a game dev company with me
i can map, carcharodontosaurus can write and darleysam can play the guitar
edit: By which I mean to say: the reason things are linear is because you are always a pawn in the game, placed to perform certain actions.
alright
this is an excellent idea
...wait
like, programming or modelling
we could totally think up some relatively-simple fun idea and make a mod
steam mirite
Valve have more freedom than many but don't for one second think that they aren't primarily concerned with turning a sizeable profit. In fact, when you consider their business strategy - bypassing publishers to retain a bigger cut for themselves, building as much as they can within one engine to minimise development costs, contracting that engine out for other designers, focusing primarily on an existing IP for revenue and pushing other games on the back of it - they're potentially driven more by money than other developers because the profitability of everything they do is all the more urgent and apparent without a publisher as a buffer. Couple that with the fact that in essence, they are now a publisher themselves - not only for their own IPs but for other design houses as well - and it's ridiculous to think that money isn't the primary driving force behind everything Valve do. Somebodies gotta pay for those Krispy Kremes.
The necessity to make money leads to good design decisions at Valve, I'm not disputing that. The point was that it will also lead to them developing and doing new things with their IPs because thats crucial in order to remain relevant and contemporary and if they don't do that then they eventually fall behind the competition and loose sales. They do cinematic linearity really well with HL2, but that element of the franchise is already looking stale and outdated by comparison to competitive products.
Valve is doing the same thing. Yes, making money tempers their design decisions in the games, but only in that they want to release something that gleams. Also, I think it's clear from Half-Life 2: Episode 2 that they've still got a hell of a lot of mileage to go from cinematic linearity. You might think it's getting stale, and all power to you, but Valve sold one hell of a lot of copies of the Orange Box. Half-Life 2 and it's Episodes have been a spectacular financial success, and unless Half-Life 2: Episode 3 is about Gordon waking up from the bad dream of the previous games and then solving physics problems for the next four hours, then they'll continue making a ludicrous amount of money.
Finally, Valve seem to be acutely aware of the potential problem you mentioned about having to constantly do new stuff. Here's the thing. From Half-Life 2, to Half-Life 2: Episode 1, to Half-Life 2: Episode 2, each has had a fantastic catalogue of unique sequences that the others didn't do. Given what's been set up for Half-Life 2: Episode 3, I believe they'll continue down this path.
I'm probably better at writing than playing guitar.. can we be Team Words?
That, or someone teach me how to make maps.