Hello,

Recently, looking for new information on Half-life 3 or episode 3 I stumbled upon this article/video :
http://www.gamespot....plained-6372687

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6VofXcw8AJQ[/media]

While the article doesn't provide much information about the upcoming games of the franchise, I found the video very interesting - it summarizes very nicely what I think was great about half life 1/2 and stuff that's missing in today's fps games.

The level design, the story and characters, the original weapons, the scripted events of dying scientists, the g-man encounters, the fun and replay value of the games...
It just seems it isn't there in modern FPS games.

Admittedly, I haven't played any of the latest shooters (my last one was Crysis 1), so I want to ask what do you think about this? Are the developers responsible for not putting enough love/work/passion into the product or is it just that today's gamers don't need games like Half-life anymore?

Blah forget it. My connection is slow to watch the video, and .... nevermind

I've enjoyed the video, thanks. A good recap of what I've enjoyed when playing HL1, HL2, Ep1 and Ep2 (and Portal 1 & 2). The games were definitely influential.

I've absolutely loved playing these games, pretty much anything made with the source engine or made by valve is beyond enjoyable.

The only other FPS that comes to mind that is similar to the amount of energy spent in creating a fantastic story, dialouge, characters and overall gameplay would be Fallout

With games like Call of Duty, where multiplayer online gameplay is stressed, there is less attentiveness towards creating an immersive storyline, trading up for satisfying the online players. Though i still love playing COD, i would much rather they spend more time creating interesting stories and new interactive gameplay.

Alas multiplayer is where the future of fps is heading. The best that can be done is to satisfy both: the true gamer who loves the story and the online "in-it-to-win-it" gamer

It was a solid overview, but I think he plays it up quite a bit. It was still good, but I can't help but feel like he'd find reasons for parts of the game being good regardless of how good/bad they might actually be.