poo 

...how constrained you feel in the use of available player space and time. Are you free to go back to visited sections etc. or are you on a timeline. A story premise is needed even if the story is nothing more then a hostile alien invasion.

On my newer machine, I've been playing 'newer' games (if you can call AvP2 newer) and on my older machine, older games like Q1 and Q2.

MoHAA, AvP2, Unreal 2, Undying, etc. are great games and are more like interactive movies because the stories are advanced in smaller increments and more frequently within levels through the use of cutscenes, sub-missions and eavesdropping. However, your choices on use of the player space is limited because often the denser content requires smaller spaces and the actual path taken will be very similar from player to player. Games like these feel like interactive movies.

On the other hand, DooM, Quake, Quake 2, Duke 3D and Wolf3D (the first) often advance the story only after you have finished a full episode and have killed a boss. There is the start point, to tell you why you're there and the end point - the victory text screen that tells the outcome of your actions and where you're headed next. Between these two stages, you only have level names to give you some sense of where you are. The story tends not to be progressed or is progressed in a less prominent way (Q2-F1 key) so the the game feel can step up to the front. On my old box, I finished playing through Q2 again. It was fun because it feels like a game and you can run about the empty levels looking for secrets or just check stuff out after killing the threats. You feel less boxed in then you would playing an interactive movie and that can be more relaxing.

Don't know if that adds much to the discusion. I'll always want my old games just to enjoy them as I used to since the new generation of games, while impressive in sophistication and experience, don't always draw me back for a round or two just for the hell of it.

Games that don't fit the top two categories: Deus-Ex and System Shock 2. 

Of all the media that I can think of, gaming is evolving the fastest but I think that's because it is young compared to other media and it is surfing the technological development wave which is fast too... but you know that.

I find it more difficult to find good movies then good games. There are some out there but I've been sitting on free movie passes (a gift) for too long waiting for something that interests me. (I do want to see the LoTR's though).

On the way down, IMO, TV is in decline wheras other media are stable or improving (really general comment here - I'm no qualified commentarian - I'm just Scraggy). I say that because TV seemed like a valid entertainment medium in the 70's (when I started watching) where you would watch and follow shows but now with an obvious desperate need to supersaturate the viewer with marketing (ads appear beside the end credits, ads appear in banners beneath while shows are running, a nominal TV hour seems to have a huge proportion of dedicated commercials compared to how it felt before) the TV viewing experience is almost completly devoid of immersion - something that games, books and movies can offer far better. I'm not a TV watcher - it has never really meant much to me.

I hope to game as long as possible. I'm not too far from 40 either and there's not too many people who share my interest but when you do hook up with people either live or on-line, I think there's plenty of evidence that gaming has a bright future as long as some creativity and invention remain and yield per invested co-orporate dollar isn't allowed to corrupt this process in the preponderance of cases.

Here's a question. Music has a broad range from being profit-generating drivel to true excellence and everything in-between. Movies are the same - there are some amazing inventive but non-commercially successful productions and then there are some big-budget profit generating productions that are designed against a marketing master plan. Could gaming titles eventually cover this kind of spectrum - from poor but creative content to hugely well produced but not necessarily the most inventive produsts? Not to say that commercial viability is inversely proportional to quality but could there be an 'indie' gaming underground out there? Will it make the next Q1?

Blah, blah, blah. I'll shut up now (it's a sick day for me.) 

[...] could there be an 'indie' gaming underground out there?

Yes. In fact, I think it's already there; though it's probably not as relatively large as the indie movie scene. Witness Cube and Serious Sam (although SS was eventually made into quite a commercial product, it started out as a group of Croatians just making a tech demo with their own resources, AFAIK).

The Underdogs has a list of games that were not commercially successful or were otherwise underrated by the press. Some stuff there might fit into the category of "indie" games. http://www.the-underdogs.org/ 

People are always looking to put something down to build themseleves up. Games are an easy target. They are also most often played by those without excessive amounts to do. Movies, etc. at least have a pseudo-productive aspect of pure relaxation. Games don't produce anything tangible and use energy.

It's a matter of emphasis regarding story vs. active play. Ideally both could be strong, but there are still limits, story gets in the way of extremely active action gaming and vice versa, plus high challenge means some will never see the end of the story. Practically, a full combination is rare or nonexistent. The best combinations are still not much a of story, but the story helps drive the game and increases immersion. But then, most stories are pretty simple at the root, it's just a matter of how one gets from point A to point B. In gaming, much of this part of the story should be provided by the game itself, not the text -- even if it makes the text look weak. 

http://www.indiegames.com/
http://www.gametunnel.com/
http://www.diygames.com/
http://www.untergrund-spiele.de/

etc, etc...