[QUOTE=MedicWine;33091976]I think you say linear, you're trying to say that there is one pre-defined entrance and one pre-defined exit.[/QUOTE]
that is linear. Both quake and half-life are designed to always play exactly the same. the only thing that might change is the way the player plays.
You're not providing any real 'insight' or opinion other than comparing FPSes to non-FPSes, calling everyone idiots and then sticking your thumbs in your ears when someone tries to counter your opinion.
The video of this thread is satire, and while opinion, quite a few share it. You don't and promptly act like we're all retarded for agreeing with the satire.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NuONuafxwk&feature=player_embedded[/media]
[QUOTE=Haunted;33091982]You're wrong, I clearly remember going out of my way to find secret locations in quake and the levels involved different layers/depth.[/QUOTE]
the secret locations were not really explorations, they were more secret rooms hidden behind a teleporter or a double wall.
[QUOTE=Haunted;33091982]Also in my opinion the art direction was awesome and evil (including references to satan which would never be allowed these days). [/QUOTE]
Quake was more Cthulhu than satan.
[QUOTE=Haunted;33091982]It's as though you're some young child who has only played quake recently but really missed the point because you weren't there at the time. [/QUOTE]
scuse me i've played quake far more than you have i'm certain. me and my mates used to have geeky lan parties where we'd bring our giant computers and set them up in my living room.
modern game design hasn't taken a step in any direction. if you all don't like the games then don't play them and find different games to play. it's like some guy who doesn't take the time to listen to music and complains that all music today is shit.
don't like linear games in corridors? play skyrim. i don't see what the issue is and i don't see how this video has any truth to it. today shooters are so wide in their scope while back in the GOOD OLD DAYS they all copied the last id game that came out.
modern game design doesn't suck, you guys suck and probably grew out of wanting to play games.
[editline]2nd November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=RikohZX;33092027]You're not providing any real 'insight' or opinion other than comparing FPSes to non-FPSes, calling everyone idiots and then sticking your thumbs in your ears when someone tries to counter your opinion.[/QUOTE]
i haven't done any of that. i've had quite a nice chat while you're posting dumb youtube videos.
you're not all retarded for agreeing with this "satire". you're just missing out on great games by sulking.
"I wasn't doing it so it means the thousands and thousands of people who played the game didn't, also I played the game more than you so that gives me more importance"
[QUOTE=thisispain;33092112]
modern game design doesn't suck, you guys suck and probably grew out of wanting to play games.
[/QUOTE]
this i fear :(
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33092412]"I wasn't doing it so it means the thousands and thousands of people who played the game didn't, also I played the game more than you so that gives me more importance"[/QUOTE]
i would address that strawman but there really isn't anything to say. i never said i was more important, he was just questioning my experience with quake. and you made up "thousands and thousands" so i don't even know what you are talking about.
the idea is to convince people that modern games are shit and we should go back to the quake days? what i'm not seeing is the huge difference between quake and today. i thought FP would love games that innovate, not games that look to the past and just do that.
quake is a linear game from 1994, it's primitive and runs on the original 32-bit processors. i don't know how one could say it has stuff like open exploration when the game never had any of that put in it. the game barely even has a story. you run around brown corridors and shoot things that grunt and look like blocky clay sculptures.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33092112]don't like linear games in corridors? play skyrim. i don't see what the issue is and i don't see how this video has any truth to it. today shooters are so wide in their scope while back in the GOOD OLD DAYS they all copied the last id game that came out.
modern game design doesn't suck, you guys suck and probably grew out of wanting to play games.
[/QUOTE]
Skyrim isnt an FPS.
[QUOTE=MedicWine;33092701]Skyrim isnt an FPS.[/QUOTE]
then play ArmA2, Team Fortress 2, or play something besides an FPS.
i really don't see any issues here. all i see are a group of really sulky individuals getting very defensive about nothing.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33092508]i would address that strawman but there really isn't anything to say. i never said i was more important, he was just questioning my experience with quake. and you made up "thousands and thousands" so i don't even know what you are talking about.
the idea is to convince people that modern games are shit and we should go back to the quake days? what i'm not seeing is the huge difference between quake and today. i thought FP would love games that innovate, not games that look to the past and just do that.
quake is a linear game from 1994, it's primitive and runs on the original 32-bit processors. i don't know how one could say it has stuff like open exploration when the game never had any of that put in it. the game barely even has a story. you run around brown corridors and shoot things that grunt and look like blocky clay sculptures.[/QUOTE]
By 'open exploration', most people tend to refer to the fact that finding secrets, shortcuts and alternate routes through maps and levels wasn't just 'there', it was actively encouraged. Rocket Jumping became a hit amongst more skilled players and developers acknowledged it, designing secrets or routes centered around trying to gain extra height/speed via explosives or other factors. Not to mention, once you started a map up, usually the entire thing was your playground save for locked or blocked areas, or scripting blocking an area off.
Nowadays, games like Battlefield 3's singleplayer campaign ruthlessly enforce the single path. You may dispose of enemies any way you want, and within the presented space of a firefight you can almost go anywhere. But shoot one wrong thing, or stray too far from where the developers want you to go, and you're instantly killed by invisible boundaries. That's not to say all old games were exempt from this, but they actively encouraged searching every nook and cranny, whereas modern shooters focus solely on plot and combat and discourage veering off the path with [i]punishment.[/i]
This is all subjective and opinion, however.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;33092753]By 'open exploration', most people tend to refer to the fact that finding secrets, shortcuts and alternate routes through maps and levels wasn't just 'there', it was actively encouraged. Rocket Jumping became a hit amongst more skilled players and developers acknowledged it, designing secrets or routes centered around trying to gain extra height/speed via explosives or other factors. Not to mention, once you started a map up, usually the entire thing was your playground save for locked or blocked areas, or scripting blocking an area off.[/QUOTE]
quite romanticized from what the original game was. things like shortcuts and alternate routes are not quite exploration because the game is laid out like a race track. many games are laid out as a race track as well following Quake's formula. to say Quake was a playground when you started a map is a bit odd considering you couldn't really do that much. rocket jumping was purely something to get an edge over other players.
[QUOTE=RikohZX;33092753]Nowadays, games like Battlefield 3's singleplayer campaign ruthlessly enforce the single path. You may dispose of enemies any way you want, and within the presented space of a firefight you can almost go anywhere. But shoot one wrong thing, or stray too far from where the developers want you to go, and you're instantly killed by invisible boundaries. That's not to say all old games were exempt from this, but they actively encouraged searching every nook and cranny, whereas modern shooters focus solely on plot and combat and discourage veering off the path with [i]punishment.[/i][/QUOTE]
well of course, those are just shit games. seriously. but that didn't just start now. ages ago we had the same shitty games that enforced the same terrible gameplay but Quake is a bad example because it's not really that open ended you know.
and tons of modern games stray from the formula. tons of modern games don't have DLC or don't have bad controls or any of that garbage. it's akin to only listening to a bad album and hoping that the next song is redemptive when there's really a lot better music.
if you say modern games are shit and you base that on FPS, you're making a huge mistake. FPS's have always been pretty shit save for a few gems in between.
Quake and Doom were the DEFINITION of linear. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but placing some fake walls in front of secrets and designing rocket-jump based shortcuts does NOT constitute exploration or nonlinearity any more than, say, shortcuts in Mario make it nonlinear. Ultimately there's always only going to be ONE path through the level, it's just that you might occasionally be able to skip parts of it.
[editline]2nd November 2011[/editline]
And honestly, much as I LOVE Doom (and I do, make no mistake), does anyone HONESTLY like Doom's level design? It was 30% running and gunning, and about 70% searching through impossibly dark, samey-looking corridors for some god-forsaken key to open up a door and get to the next stage already.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;33093058]Quake and Doom were the DEFINITION of linear. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but placing some fake walls in front of secrets and designing rocket-jump based shortcuts does NOT constitute exploration or nonlinearity any more than, say, shortcuts in Mario make it nonlinear. Ultimately there's always only going to be ONE path through the level, it's just that you might occasionally be able to skip parts of it.
[editline]2nd November 2011[/editline]
And honestly, much as I LOVE Doom (and I do, make no mistake), does anyone HONESTLY like Doom's level design? It was 30% running and gunning, and about 70% searching through impossibly dark, samey-looking corridors for some god-forsaken key to open up a door and get to the next stage already.[/QUOTE]
There's always going to be a singular goal in FPS and it's the developers job to ease you out of that feeling of linearity. The rocket jumping shortcuts? A way to express skill. The secret areas? Rewards for exploration. Modern shooters offer next to no way to differentiate your playthrough from your friend's. Imagine these scenarios:
Quake:
"Hey man played the level set in X?"
"Yeah I got through it, but just barely"
"Dude it was super easy! Just get the Y powerup."
"What? There was no Y in there."
"You just had to maneuver your way to this secret area in Z."
CoD (Or a modern shooter):
"Hey did you beat the game yet?"
"Yeah I bought it yesterday didn't I"
"Did you do X in Y?"
"Yeah."
"And Y in Z?"
"Yeah"
And so on.
Older shooters and their '70% searching in darkness' gave you the feeling of freedom and helped set the atmosphere towards the grotesque monsters you are facing.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;33093058]Quake and Doom were the DEFINITION of linear. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but placing some fake walls in front of secrets and designing rocket-jump based shortcuts does NOT constitute exploration or nonlinearity any more than, say, shortcuts in Mario make it nonlinear. Ultimately there's always only going to be ONE path through the level, it's just that you might occasionally be able to skip parts of it.
[editline]2nd November 2011[/editline]
And honestly, much as I LOVE Doom (and I do, make no mistake), does anyone HONESTLY like Doom's level design? It was 30% running and gunning, and about 70% searching through impossibly dark, samey-looking corridors for some god-forsaken key to open up a
door and get to the next stage already.[/QUOTE]
Classic Doom wasn't dark. Like at all. and keys were a vital element to keeping the player from rushing straight to the exit. They could be frustrating, but usually that only happened if everything else on the map was dead before you found it. And even then, once you did find it a wall would open up revealing a dozen more enemies.
The fact that 65% of the enemies in Doom were bullet sponges meant you wouldn't be able to kill them without slowing down.
And also, I'd rather be just about anywhere other than the FUCKING DESERT.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;33093058]Quake and Doom were the DEFINITION of linear. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but placing some fake walls in front of secrets and designing rocket-jump based shortcuts does NOT constitute exploration or nonlinearity any more than, say, shortcuts in Mario make it nonlinear. Ultimately there's always only going to be ONE path through the level, it's just that you might occasionally be able to skip parts of it.
[editline]2nd November 2011[/editline]
And honestly, much as I LOVE Doom (and I do, make no mistake), does anyone HONESTLY like Doom's level design? It was 30% running and gunning, and about 70% searching through impossibly dark, samey-looking corridors for some god-forsaken key to open up a door and get to the next stage already.[/QUOTE]
I love Doom's level design, and I loved it even more when I heard about the time put into these and all the reflexion and debates they had over making a single level of DooM. It followed simple and efficient rules that you can see in each level - it was intelligent, well made and very optimized.
When I started making maps by myself on doom I respected even more the creators because it's really hard to make a map as good as theirs - instinctively, when you make a map, the first thing you think of is a complete corridor - and even if you don't want to do a corridor map, you'll end up doing one because it's complete human logic to get to the point when creating something. This is why non-corridor maps like DooM's and Quake's are so hard to navigate through and why it's very respectable when a developer takes time to make such maps with tons of rooms and various ways to get to a certain point with rewarded exploration.
It's also why I dislike recent corridor like games - they are lazy. Even Serious Sam, which is a model of mindless gameplay, has big, open and diverse areas that reward exploration and never really give a single path to a point, except for a few exceptions.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33092112]today shooters are so wide in their scope while back in the GOOD OLD DAYS they all copied the last id game that came out.[/QUOTE]
I disagree with you, good sir. As an FPS player, I believe there has always diversity in the FPS genre.
Go back to the library of the 90's and you can play:
Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss (1992)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpuTbxkaZ94[/media]
Rise of the Triad (1994)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY8sq6r7Gko[/media]
Heretic (1994)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-fMqxlg3t8[/media]
Star Wars: Dark Forces (1995 - Actual gameplay starts at 4:47)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW8yk_eIHJU[/media]
Killing Time (1995)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo-6JeHs6ZY[/media]
Duke Nukem 3D (1996)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6JcZv3wPuU[/media]
Half-Life (1998)
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbY1lSPj4KU[/media]
Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X872Y5RSpNI[/media]
And that's just a few to list, there's tons of different things to play.
Also, shit actually had other colors than grey and brown.
Don't forget Daggerfall.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33095187]Also, shit actually had other colors than grey and brown.[/QUOTE]
Quake had a lot of brown, but it wasn't a dull, dry and dusty kind of brown. It was actually kind of the opposite. It felt dark, damp, and cold.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;33095951]Quake had a lot of brown, but it wasn't a dull, dry and dusty kind of brown. It was actually kind of the opposite. It felt dark, damp, and cold.[/QUOTE]
It all depends on the game, then; dull, washed out colors with a good atmosphere can feel like a dead, or cold world. Dull, washed out colors without that type of atmospheric approach look very muddy and bland.
[QUOTE=MIPS;33084768]You couldn't do DLC's or updates back then because internet connections were not even good enough for it yet.[/QUOTE]
Not true, the space games took up on your computer was less than a Gb back then, now imagine a DLC using that same type of model.
It's the same rate as today.
[editline]2nd November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;33090642]hmm okay
GTA IV only had two excellent pieces of DLC.
ArmA2 did not, to my chagrin.
Hmm, Starcraft II did not...
Hah, Quake did. Hmm, Oblivion did not, like many many others...
The Half-Life 2 series had an excellent UI.
Any Source game really.
uhm. Quake isn't a difficult game... Also again, ArmA2 or just to be fresh, Men of War: Vietnam! Both very difficult games.
Red Dead Redemption did not.
Come on... I already mentioned like several games.
RAGE, or even Skyrim which will soon be released.
hey look it's still wrong[/QUOTE]
Stop posting please. All your posts i've seen thus far have been very uneducated. Also please capitalize all first letters of each and every sentence please.
Just wanted to point that out to you.
[QUOTE=Aredbomb;33095951]Quake had a lot of brown, but it wasn't a dull, dry and dusty kind of brown. It was actually kind of the opposite. It felt dark, damp, and cold.[/QUOTE]
The difference being Quake was a science-fiction-fantasy-medieval-gothic game and had its very own universe with its very own environments. Sure it was very brown, but the entire design was working on this cold, washed out aspect and was really helping in the atmosphere of the game.
It's not like all these recent modern shooters where it's all dull and gray to make it "realistic" while it just makes everything look so depressing when it's not supposed to.
Post-apocalyptic games like Fallout 3 are quite an exception because shit's supposed to be depressing and destroyed - having a dull atmosphere is actually much more powerful than having a colorful world that's based on a more realistic approach of human vision (the game designers of Fallout 3 pointed out in the art book given with the collector edition that they deliberately disobeyed the laws of logic and nature by washing out colors and not putting living plants around, even though 200 years in the future, even in a radioactive environment, plants would grow up very fast).
This is the real problem with the gray and brown combination - it's either very powerful and gives the game a true atmosphere, or it's making it a standardized, bland and basic title with no identity. After all, Mirror's edge had basically no other color than Red, Yellow and Green, yet it's very, very recognizable and likable.
Are people in this thread seriously suggesting that Quake or Doom weren't linear corridor shooters? They invented the very definition of it. Now, don't get me wrong, I fucking love Doom and Quake, with Doom being my favorite game series, but don't suggest that the levels were anything more than:
walk down this path
get the key
walk back and open door
walk down and get another key
walk BACK again and open final door.
thisispain please stop
your crapping on your own argument at this point
You used to be a smart and witty individual with amazing points, now your swimming in your own feces, pointing out flaws of a [B][URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire"]SATIRE[/URL][/B] video. Though there is still a hint of that person who I respect still within you.
[editline]2nd November 2011[/editline]
[SUP][I]sat·ire   [sat-ahyuhr]
noun
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.
a literary genre comprising such compositions.[/I][/SUP]
All this talk about classic fps games being just as linear as modern games because there was always only one route is missing the point.
Sure, in doom, quake, half-life etc there's only one true path, but you had to explore the maps to find it. The exploration is what separates a contrived event from an interesting environment. There wasn't just one corridor / road / ravine to travel down.
And they CERTAINLY didn't then put a HUD waypoint at the end of said lone corridor either.
[QUOTE=subenji99;33097745]All this talk about classic fps games being just as linear as modern games because there was always only one route is missing the point.
Sure, in doom, quake, half-life etc there's only one true path, but you had to explore the maps to find it. The exploration is what separates a contrived event from an interesting environment. There wasn't just one corridor / road / ravine to travel down.
And they CERTAINLY didn't then put a HUD waypoint at the end of said lone corridor either.[/QUOTE]
The reason I love games like Bethesda games, and UT, is because its much more free space to play in, especially with Bethesda's games. It's also why I found Dead Island so entertaining, its a wide open zone. Same with Deus Ex 1/3, you have alternative ways to one route. Gives you the chance to really chose. Not only this, but you can choose to take a breather and explore instead of fighting and doing the story-line, doing whatever the hell you want.
Though HL2 does still have a place in heart.
Half-Life 2 was unique in that the linearity made sense within the game's world. Areas that were sealed off from exploration had a reason to be that way.
also it did open up a little later on, while still mostly a corridor design there were opportunities for exploration dotted along the route all the time.
[QUOTE=subenji99;33097984]Half-Life 2 was unique in that the linearity made sense within the game's world. Areas that were sealed off from exploration had a reason to be that way.
also it did open up a little later on, while still mostly a corridor design there were opportunities for exploration dotted along the route all the time.[/QUOTE]
I really actually hope they open up far more in ep3/hl3 or whatever they're doing. But keep the spirit of HL2 alive while still having the player go down a specific path at times.
Hl2 is an amazing game, though one pathed, its still amazing.
Even though it was linear, even the Half Life games had a few secret areas that you could find which would have weapons and ammo waiting for you. Such as that one room in Ravenholm, with the zombie in the cage that you can catch fire. There is absolutely nothing that's important in there, no objectives, nothing mission critical, and it isn't even hard to find. But The very fact that it's there, and that you have something entertaining to do in there just as a little bonus, is what separates it from all the Battlefield 3's, Call of Duty's or the like, which have no deviant paths of any sort, no secrets. Just a solid corridor filled with shooting galleries.
[B]EDIT
[/B]Another neat thing about HL2 was that you were actually allowed to [I]choose[/I] how to handle a situation. While driving along the coast, you have absolutely no reason to stop by any of those houses that are along it. You can just keep driving. Or you could go in and fight. And when you fought, you could approach from any angle, use any weapon you have. You could hang back and see how many combine you could shoot with the crossbow, or you could push forward and throw tires at them with the gravity gun.
You just don't see that anymore today. All it is now is just "walk into predetermined battle area" and "stand on your side of the area and kill everybody on the other side. And if you try to flank them or go a different way they kill you instantly"
[QUOTE=5killer;33097626]Are people in this thread seriously suggesting that Quake or Doom weren't linear corridor shooters? They invented the very definition of it. Now, don't get me wrong, I fucking love Doom and Quake, with Doom being my favorite game series, but don't suggest that the levels were anything more than:
walk down this path
get the key
walk back and open door
walk down and get another key
walk BACK again and open final door.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/halolz-dot-com-fpsmapdesign-1993-2010-doom.gif[/img]
Non-corridor game vs corridor game.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;33098820][img]http://www.halolz.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/halolz-dot-com-fpsmapdesign-1993-2010-doom.gif[/img]
Non-corridor game vs corridor game.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't exactly take it that far, as non-corridor games are usually tournament games like UT where you go crazy so its a total given (Which means far more replay ability).
I think that's still a good example of pure open VS pure corridor though. corridor games can be amazing, but don't have nearly as much replay value. When you play hl2 and have mastered it, there's no more fun, but when you play Zelda, or UT99, or Morrowind, theres far more to explore and do before mastering it completely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.