quote:
Original post by Oluseyi So go play Red Faction. Don''t want to go down the corridor? Blow a hole in the side of the room. Yeah, it''s not perfect, but it''s a nice proof of concept.
My experience with Red Faction (on PS2) was that, what with the limited ammo for explosive weapons and the scattering of indestructible walls (and windows for some reason - on time I took out an entire wall leaving the window hanging unsupported in midair) you are effectively limited to only blowing through walls in pre-planned locations or as an alternative to walking a few meters to the nearby open door... More of a marketing gimmick than a concept piece if you ask me
The industry has become somewhat shrinkwrapped. Back in the pre-Doom years of video games, every programmer wrote their own game engines from the ground up. Although this led to the creation of some very original ideas, it was very costly. Those days are over as no one is willing to re-invent the wheel.
Most games that come out are based somewhat on old game concepts. After all, programmers have been churning out games for the past 30+ years. New ideas are running thin but there is still much headroom for originality. Because of this, the modern gamer is very hard to impress. Who wants to spend 50+ hours doing something they''ve already done in another game?
I''ve been trying to get away from the FPS, RTS, RPG, etc. ideals and trying to focus on games with emergent features (games that do things that weren''t scripted or even expected by the game creators). Such games as The Sims, Black & White and possibly Republic usually surprise players with entertaining and realistic quirks. Although this style of gameplay is still in its infancy, there is much room to move forward.
So what''s my point? I think if you focus too much on game types of the past, you''re restricting yourself from moving into the future. Of course, game styles of the past are important to learn from and there are the people that like retro-gaming but as I asked before: Who wants to spend 50+ hours doing something they''ve already done in another game?
Im not sure gametypes of the past is really the focus. Its the lack-of gametpyes or the bucketing of games into genres that alot of us are so concerned about. For example, if you make a great game idea, making it an original and thoroughly interesting gametype the first thing the marketing boss says - "what do we sell it as? RPG, RTS, Strategy?". You say, well its not really any of those, its sort of new - the response everytime is "Too risky", or "It wont sell".
These are the harsh realities as I mentioned earlier. And yet we have in earlier times tackled many obscure game types and sold them well.
And Im sure this list could grow enourmously. But the point remains. These games sit outside our current gametypes and yet they all did sell exceedingly well in their time. So why do we not see more games like them? (Although I heard there is a new Paradroid coming... ooooooooh....)
Erm.. this is a very important topic to me but I don't have time to read through all the posts. Hopefully be able to do that later..
Just want to remind people that there are several different types of games being discussed here, many of which are being compared when they are hardly comparable:
1) Point and Click (aka Graphical) Adventure Games -- "Maniac Mansion," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Graphical Adventure," "Grim Fandango," "The Longest Journey."
These are inventory and puzzle games that are almost always very linear and offer a unique environment to explore. These are not dead nor are they close to being dead. The demand for them though is much lower than it once was, possibly because the new video game generation is so obsessed with FPS, RTS, and Console games.
2) Side Scrolling Adventure Games -- "Pitfall," "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Action Game," "Super Mario Bros."
Arcade-style, platform-based puzzle games, running, jumping, etc. The direct ancestors of games like Tomb Raider, Rayman, and of course the new Mario games. These games aren't dead by any stretch of the imagination, they've just gone 3D.. and as always they fill a significant portion of the console market, especially amongst younger gamers.
3) Text adventures (aka Interactive Fiction) -- "Colossal Cave," "Zork"
"GO NORTH. GET CANDLE. LIGHT CANDLE WITH MATCH." Commercially extinct. Still developed by small indies and collected by hardcore fans. These are the direct ancestors of Graphical Adventures (1). Nowhere is this more evident than in the Hugo series of graphical adventures, but the early LucasArts games show it too.
4) Myst-inspired -- "Myst," "The Journeyman Project"
Difficult to classify them in any other way. Perhaps the most puzzle-intensive of them all, there is no inventory to worry about, just the first person perspective exploration and puzzle-solving. This style is a typical one to find in budget bins.
quote:
Original post by rmsgrey you are effectively limited to only blowing through walls in pre-planned locations or as an alternative to walking a few meters to the nearby open door... More of a marketing gimmick than a concept piece if you ask me
in some situations yes.. but in multiplayer it''s a whole different story. there''s one level where i was kinda hiding in a largish room with an assault rifle waiting for someone to walk through, when like 4 guys ambushed me by blowing holes through various points of the room. it was an amazing sight (right before my ass was handed to me).
