Having said all that, last night I played botmatch in the demo VTCHGCSFD map and spent the entire game (must have been 40 minutes including overtime) in the flying vehicle, usually over the enemy base, spamming rockets below and occasionally landing on their roof to heal with the link gun. Died twice and got up to....errr Massacre I think?? That was kinda fun. 

Cool 

In fact I was not able to play HL2 for the poor level design if compared with doom3 or halo2, where the monsters behave in a simple way, but where the level design, helped by scripted stuff

Put. Down. The. Crack. Pipe. 

I'm not in contradiction with my previous post #something when I spoke of textures, music bla bla bla. And right now I can't tell you why

Crack pipe.

OK, OK, I'm sorry, I won't just quote and one liner again (even if it is half the discussion on here ;)

More post coffee. 

To agree there - saying that half life2 had bad level design is like saying the mona lisa has a wonky smile.

Maybe the funneling is too apparant in some parts - is this going back to your earlier comments about free roaming / exploring?

Personally it'll be a matter of nanoseconds between the release of ep3 and me owning it. 

HL games aren't big on exploration (outside of a few crates here and there) but their environments are both concise and still fully detailed and interactive. 

OK, I accept the point about free roaming/open environments being better than linear level design in an ideal game.

However, a strong story requires certain routes/progression points in order to convey the main narrative arc of the game (I think we can agree that an ideal game would also have a well written, engaging plot). There are various reasons why a choice to tell a strong story (as in HL2) results in linear level design.

The vast majority of games that have depicted large areas outside of story relevant routes have had simple zones generally filled with dumb ai masses (zombies! (see Derrida) ;) rather than interestingly scripted encounters. The best example of this being any MMORPG game, which will literally have fields of the stupidest creatures found outside an internet forum.

While the ideal is obviously an entire world within which the main plot arc occurs, there are unfortunately pragmatic limitations when it comes to the timespans involved in human creative productions (at least, if one wishes to maintain any validity as 'art').
The only game(s) that has achieved something approaching this is the GTA series, but for Rockstar to make one city with believable, interactive non-main arc areas takes them years. To create an entire world with this level of immersion would take a lifetime.

While I concede that a choice of routes within the level design is flaw of Half-Life 2, it is far more apparent in Doom 3 and Halo 2 (the games you referenced as preferable to HL2; poor level design if compared with doom3 or halo2). This is something we have discussed many, many times on here and is a common flaw in the majority of FPS games (not that that justifies linear level design, but it does negate your point when used in a comparative argument). There is also the pragmatic arguments that non-linear level design results in increased production time (which I feel is the reason for recent FPS games being majoritively linear) and, again returning to the issue of plot progression, certain scripted sequences need to be observed/played out (and to a lesser extent item/weapon upgrades provided), resulting in the need for choke points/linearity for the designer to maintain any kind of control of the players experience of the game (yes, I'm a control freak ;)


(oh, and on re-reading CI475's posts; it's not that you contradict your previous posts, it's that you contradict yourself within the same post) 

(I think we can agree that an ideal game would also have a well written, engaging plot)

This can only be true if you've already restricted your definition of "game" to "single player games with some sort of narrative." And I guess this is where all big-budget PC/Console single player, non-sports games are trying to go nowadays, but it's not the only way a game can be. 

. . . stupidest creatures found outside an internet forum.

If we're talking about an ideal FPS with story then it'd basically be HL2 but with branching narrative.

You do something different in the game at some point - go left instead or right, or fail a mission and allow something important to be destroyed (or someone killed eg. Alyx's dad) and the plot goes off in a completely different direction.

The reason that it's not done very often is because it's a bastard to get right and isn't 200% the effort, more like 250% (per branch).

But that'd be the ideal, for me. 

"The reason that it's not done very often is because it's a bastard to get right and isn't 200% the effort, more like 250% (per branch). "

Exactly. It's hard enough to get the base game done with the one path - never mind adding a bunch of content that most people will never see if they don't replay the game several times. Oy. :) 

And even in games where there is a 'choice' of outcomes (a la Deus Ex, Silent Hill series, etc), the plot is only really effected at a few key points, most of the time it doesn't matter what you do as far as plot goes. A game where every little decision effects the plot? I'm not sure that's even possible given current tech (you'd have to be verging on making a realistic model world/humanity at that point).

Although I do like the idea of a game in which one of the possible outcomes would be;

"you remember that 27th random guy you killed in the spree you went on after getting bored of the tutorials? Yeh, well he was the guy who was supposed to betray the bad guy and give you the codes to the uber-l33t-underground-base-o'-doom. Unlucky"

(complete freedom of narrative remember ;) 

I'm aware this is a double post, but I wanted to seperate these points (the previous is just my comment on non-linear narrative to ijed/Willem).

I think metl raises a very interesting point that an all encompassing, uber sandbox with professionally written dialogue/plot (note, not self indulgent fappery by a games designer (hai MGS4) isn't necessarilly the ideal game. What about just plain fun? What about mindless escapism for 30 minutes without having to care about x, y or z's life story? What about the joy of simplicity or lateral problem solving? Is it possible for the 'ideal' game to include all these elements as 'sub games' (kinda like the GTA arcade machines but better)? Is any given genre of game 'more ideal' or could the ideal game combine the existing genres (rts+fps+rpg+puzzle+sport game, etc)? Will Batman escape from the evile clutches of the Joker or will the clown prince of crime have the last laugh?

Tune in tomorrow when I'm not sleep deprived and mildly intoxicated for more thrilling self-indulgent pretention 

That was HL2, for me at least. A bit of everything.

Multi-branching storylines are doable with current tech, the reason why they're rare is that putting time into a story, unless its an RPG is seen as a waste of money. Expanding on a storyline always has trouble because the producers won't like the branches, gaurunteed.

"What, so they player can end the game a murderous evil bastard? No, make it so it ends the same but the character feels a bit guilty." ~20 seconds of different cutscene. 

Is it possible for the 'ideal' game to include all these elements as 'sub games' (kinda like the GTA arcade machines but better)? Is any given genre of game 'more ideal' or could the ideal game combine the existing genres (rts+fps+rpg+puzzle+sport game, etc)?

That definitely seems to be the trend. We seem to be converging on uber-games that contain all other games. Moving from "roller coaster" games to "theme park" games -- like world of warcraft, for example, which combines all the things you might have once done outside the game, so you never have to leave -- chat channels so you don't need to hang out in IRC, auction houses so you don't need ebay, lobbies where you can hang out waiting for a raid group to form up, etc.

And GTA has the same sort of theme park idea going -- you can play the entire game of Crazy Taxi, for example, just by getting in a cab (in one of the sequels, at least.)

This is an good development in one way (more immersive, epic worlds you can lose yourself in, more open worlds where your choices matter, etc.) But it also changes the playing field -- few developers have the expertise, resources, and existing market positioning (a known brand) to be able to compete in that space. In a sense, if one theme park game (like GTA) contains every games game you would want to play, right down to Tetris, Mortal Kombat, Gran Turismo, and Madden '08, then that's sort of a monopoly situation where you're getting all your games from the same source. Nobody can make a better tetris clone and compete with GTA 5, because to compete with GTA 5 you need to compete on all features. And if someone already bought GTA 5, they have less incentive to buy another tetris clone, if it's only somewhat better. 

<quote>What about just plain fun? What about mindless escapism for 30 minutes without having to care about x, y or z's life story?</quote>

Well, that's what Quake(n), Unreal/UT(n), etc. are for. Sometimes you don't want to wade around in a story. Sometimes you just wanna frag and slaughter everything around you. Best non-sexual, non-perverted stress reliever ever. :P

In either case, I still don't see the point of people commenting on a subgenre of FPS that they don't like. The reasons are either "it's too slow", "it's too fast", "the story sucks", "there's no story", etc.

Stick with what you like. It's cool that people like CI475 have opinions, but we really don't give a shit if a game is not favorable to them. It's just taking up space on the forum.

People that like that game? Gather around and enjoy together, that's the point of these multiplayer games. People that don't like the game? Go away and enjoy your types of game. Don't try to ruin it for others.

And yes, I am an UT(n) fan as well. Awesome maps guys. :) 

Sorry for the double-post, but I can't quote for shit. :D 

Running to get our soundsystem, but two points;

1) What about modular content releases? Makes the better tetris clone a mod for GTA5 with a micro payment to upgrade

2) < q > < / q > 

1) What about modular content releases? Makes the better tetris clone a mod for GTA5 with a micro payment to upgrade

Sure, except you're suggest Rockstar make the game moddable enough that their competitors have a shot at getting some money after all? 

With mods released under license by Rockstar so they earn a percentage on any game released ever... Yeh, I think they'd go for that ;p

Think of it as Game 2.0, you get 'world creation' studios and then other developers create games/stories within those worlds.

(And then you have the possibility of indie/bedroom developers releasing uber cheap games to a mass audience through the system) 

Think of it as Game 2.0, you get 'world creation' studios and then other developers create games/stories within those worlds.

This sounds sort of like a "game OS" that people can develop apps for. Rockstar can be the microsoft of modding. Or maybe valve is microsoft, rockstar is apple? Anyway, having one platform that everyone is locked into sounds like how everyone has Windows. 

Sounds like a shitty version of the Metaverse... 

what makes the metaverse better? 

Maybe it wasn't clear, but when I compare things to windows and microsoft, I'm implying that they might be a bad idea. I don't want another monopoly platform that can be controlled by some company. 

...I resent the claim that my dystopian vision of gaming's future won't be as good as the metaverse. 

is fucking brilliant.