Who else misses the days when gamers were super-nerds?
<a href="http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/15-09/ff_halo" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/...e/15-09/ff_halo</a>
This article really kind of bothered me. Showing how some business psychologist is making every challenge in Halo 3 easier, even going as far as to make it tell you when your rifle is in accurate range and adding arrows for things as simple as "go around this cliff". Tailoring an alien-massacring FPS towards gamers mothers and making slightly challenging fights linear, streaming battles by making the keys to them obvious and blatant. Argh.
This article really kind of bothered me. Showing how some business psychologist is making every challenge in Halo 3 easier, even going as far as to make it tell you when your rifle is in accurate range and adding arrows for things as simple as "go around this cliff". Tailoring an alien-massacring FPS towards gamers mothers and making slightly challenging fights linear, streaming battles by making the keys to them obvious and blatant. Argh.
Comments
I want to play the game, not wondering if I'd need to open Gamefaqs to complete it.
People on this forum care about Halo?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's fun? Tons and tons of people play it? I mean, this is <i>off-topic</i>. I don't even play NS anymore, Im just here because I like you guys.
Buhahaha! Thats a good one... oh wait, you're serious aren't you?
I want to play the game, not wondering if I'd need to open Gamefaqs to complete it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You shouldn't have to go to GameFAQs if there's no puzzles in a game.
--Scythe--
Halo 1 on the PC was loads of fun. It was a good game. It just wasn't anywhere near as good as all the console fanboys seem to think it is, when compared to real FPS games.
--Scythe--
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though there might be better FPS games out there(I personally heart half-life above all) I think the main reason halo 1 fanboys love it so much is that was just plain fun to play with friends in your living room.
non-gamers playing at friends + easy to play/pick up + Fun = A successful game that hardcore gamers dislike
Though there might be better FPS games out there(I personally heart half-life above all) I think the main reason halo 1 fanboys love it so much is that was just plain fun to play with friends in your living room.
non-gamers playing at friends + easy to play/pick up + Fun = A successful game that hardcore gamers dislike
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same reason Goldeneye was fun for the N64.
The same reason real FPS games are more fun at a LAN party... talking smack while not separated by teh interweb.
I found the single player boring and repetitive. Mostly repetitive, but <i>mostly</i> boring.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->non-gamers playing at friends + easy to play/pick up + Fun = A successful game that hardcore gamers dislike<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take issue with that statement for 2 reasons: 1) Everybody loves goldeneye, smash bros., and mario kart, including hardcore gamers. 2) Anything that uses a dual analog aiming system simply cannot be described as "easy to pick up".
It's one thing testing a game to make it enjoyable and flowing, but watering it down so that appeals to a larger audience is just pure greed.
If bungie want to make a game that will be played by everyone then they should just make a bunch of minigames with fuzzy characters and release it on the Wii.
That really gives me the sh1ts. its a load of cods wallop.
While Co-op was really fun, multiplayer had me bored to tears. I never knew an FPS game could be so slow paced. I believe Halo Fanboys love it so much is because it brought a somewhat new genre to consoles. FPS on console wasn't really done correctly since GoldenEye and Perfect Dark.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But Bungie's designers aren't just making a game: They're trying to divine the golden <b>mean</b> of fun. They need to create an experience that is challenging enough to thrill the 15 million existing hardcore fans of Halo — yet appealing enough to lure in millions of new players.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I want to play games that try to reach the pinnacle of fun, not the 'mean'. -_-
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"That enemy can kill the player in three shots," he says. "Imagine your mother playing, where she's barely learning how to move around in the game — bam, bam, bam — dead. That's not going to be a fun experience."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I did once play Quake at a LAN cafe with my dad (who was around his mid 40s at the time). We ended up having to play co-op instead and it took us about 45 minutes to get through a level. The lesson that taught me was I have a different taste in entertainment to my dad, not "I want to experience shallow gameplay because I like sitting through mind-numbingly yawnsome noobfare provided I can do it with a family member". That's like Lucas saying the stormtroopers in Star Wars need to be dumbed down so the film will appeal more to babbling toddlers. Oh wait-
So basically Halo is to become the 'Lion King' or the 'Shrek' of the gaming world. Now Shrek's fun, but I in no way want to play the game equivalent over and over with my friends. I want something intriguing, impressive and with depth, and I guess that rules out this new Halo. GG Microsoft.
(yes, I know the clones were already written in, but they didn't have to sound like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiki" target="_blank">Twiki</a>)
Thief was too unforgiving when it comes to finding everything in a level and not killing anyone. System Shock 2 had you backtrack too much and was way too unforgiving with the need to conserve ammo. Bioshock is a great FPS with an awesomely detailed world, and a very cool map that lets you make sure you didn't miss any rooms, and no need to backtrack incredibly far for any reason unless you just want to explore more... the stealth gameplay is great IMO and completely optional - you can socket abilities that quiet your footsteps and increase your melee damage and make you invisible when standing still - but they don't restrict you from killing people. It all comes together for a really smooth gameplay experience that doesn't feel like you're ever having to waste time.
Video games have so many little mechanisms in them nowadays that a person not indoctrinated can be overwhelmed.
Just like there will always be adventure games! Oh...
I totally understand the goal set by game developers to attract non-gamers into the market, because it means more money for the developers. But as a gamer, I'm worried about it. As much as I'd like to see more of my family and friends become gamers, I don't want the game dumbed down to their level of ineptitude to be able to have them play with me. Obviously, Halo 3 is going to be immensely popular, and I'm sure the work being done to make the game noob-friendly is going to get some credit, potentially by other game development studies. They may take the very same approach with their games, increasing the likelihood of this style of gameplay continuing into other - or worse, most - games.
I don't think things will change for the better, though. As long as gamers and geeks continue to be "chic" in the eyes of the public, and gaming in general continues to gain appeal, games will continue to move more and more toward pablum for the general audiences. Unfortunately for us, the ever increasing popularity of gaming is becoming our undoing, as politics and capitalism is dumbing down the once-niche market into a more easily-sold product.
The biggest opportunity for solid gameplay is likely going to end up in the independent studios, just as we see in movies, television, and music, which have all become so mass-marketed that they too have been "dumbed down" for the general audiences.
I know that it sounds rather elitist, but I'll admit that I'm likely rather elitist when it comes to gaming. I don't really want games to hold my hand, and I dislike it when they do. I liked that System Shock II was so brutal with its ammunition supply, for instance, because it made me work to win the game. As much as I like winning, I also don't like to see the game purposely making it possible for me to do so. I feel the same way playing a "cheating in my favor" game as discovering that a friend has been purposely playing sports badly when I'm around just to make me feel better for being so inept at the game. It's not a fun experience, finding out one's stupid, regardless of the subject.
Now you can't screw yourself, I think it makes games less stressful... but when you can overcome those really hard things it's THAT much cooler!
I totally understand the goal set by game developers to attract non-gamers into the market, because it means more money for the developers. But as a gamer, I'm worried about it. As much as I'd like to see more of my family and friends become gamers, I don't want the game dumbed down to their level of ineptitude to be able to have them play with me. Obviously, Halo 3 is going to be immensely popular, and I'm sure the work being done to make the game noob-friendly is going to get some credit, potentially by other game development studies. They may take the very same approach with their games, increasing the likelihood of this style of gameplay continuing into other - or worse, most - games.
I don't think things will change for the better, though. As long as gamers and geeks continue to be "chic" in the eyes of the public, and gaming in general continues to gain appeal, games will continue to move more and more toward pablum for the general audiences. Unfortunately for us, the ever increasing popularity of gaming is becoming our undoing, as politics and capitalism is dumbing down the once-niche market into a more easily-sold product.
The biggest opportunity for solid gameplay is likely going to end up in the independent studios, just as we see in movies, television, and music, which have all become so mass-marketed that they too have been "dumbed down" for the general audiences.
I know that it sounds rather elitist, but I'll admit that I'm likely rather elitist when it comes to gaming. I don't really want games to hold my hand, and I dislike it when they do. I liked that System Shock II was so brutal with its ammunition supply, for instance, because it made me work to win the game. As much as I like winning, I also don't like to see the game purposely making it possible for me to do so. I feel the same way playing a "cheating in my favor" game as discovering that a friend has been purposely playing sports badly when I'm around just to make me feel better for being so inept at the game. It's not a fun experience, finding out one's stupid, regardless of the subject.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When I read this, I somehow imagine the current gamers in 20 years, sitting around complaining that games "used to be about the fun", wearing Half Life T-Shirts and accusing most games developers of "selling out", and liking indie games simply because they're indie games, not because they're any good.
I weep for our future.
Yeah, like Sam and Max, The Longest Journey, Indigo Prophecy, On The Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness, and about a zillion indie games that I don't play so I can't remember their names. Adventure gaming is nowhere near dead.
Except they have been getting better and better over the past few years, so it's more like they're in rehab.
Oh come on, those Sam and Max games definitely have room for improvement.
edit: Oh and girls are SOOOO GROSS, rite guyz?