Modern shooters and the atrophy of fun

I finished BioShock Infinite last weekend. It’s probably one of the best shooters I’ve ever played.

I loved the cleverness of the storyline, the expressiveness of the characters, and the unique beauty of the graphics. I loved how the game got so immersive that, during late-night sessions, I almost felt like I really was fighting my way through Columbia—like I really was trying to tear a young woman named Elizabeth from the clutches of her fanatical, despotic father.

I loved everything about BioShock Infinite. Except for the gameplay.

Don’t get me wrong. The exploration was great. Watching the story unfold was incredible. But the combat and looting got so repetitive—so downright boring—that I couldn’t stand to play more than a couple hours at a time. I got sick of digging through trashcans inexplicably filled with silver coins and of fighting wave after wave of enemies, each one more indistinguishable than the last. The combat sequences blurred together, ran into one another, and I found myself praying for them to end, hoping that I could proceed without playing hi-fi wack-a-mole with steampunk guns and angry crows.

So why is BioShock Infinite one of my favorite shooters? Because the others are just as bad, if not worse.

Since the days of Doom and Quake, we’ve seen shooters take quantum leaps in graphics, writing, voice acting, and just about everything else—except for gameplay. Somehow, gameplay hasn’t evolved. It hasn’t gotten more fun or more engaging or more interesting. Instead, it’s atrophied into a bland rut, to the point where big-budget shooters feel just like old light-gun arcade games (Virtua Cop, House of the Dead, and so on). Players are still stuck on rails, still made to gun down easy target after easy target, pausing only to reload and to watch cut scenes. Today’s visuals and stories might be Oscar-worthy, but the interactivity still feels like tasteless filler.

Shooters could be so much more. Instead of trivializing combat, they could make fights less frequent, longer, and more memorable. They could reward players for acting rationally when outnumbered—hide, flee, or die. Shooters could, when appropriate, encourage problem-solving and exploration over brute force. Hell, why couldn’t they have players decide how the story plays out? But no, that’s all too much to ask. Studios and publishers seem to have forgotten that games are supposed to be games, not CG films with playable action scenes.

Things weren’t always this way. I have very fond memories of System Shock 2, BioShock Infinite‘s spiritual pre-predecessor. I remember desperately scrounging for ammo, cowering in fear from even lone mutants, since I knew a fight might leave me badly wounded—and the noise might attract other creatures. I recall sneaking past enemies and reprogramming turrets to dispatch them so that I wouldn’t lose precious health or bullets in combat. I can still recall the satisfaction I felt when, later in the game, I finally had enough upgrades to gun down monsters in one shot.

In System Shock 2, each enemy encounter was an event: memorable, frightening, dangerous, and sometimes exhilarating. Getting lost in the corridors of the Von Braun was part of the game, and it made the experience all the more immersive. There was a real sense that you, the player, had to use your own cunning and skill and sense of orientation to survive. Because of that, beating the game felt like a true achievement, and it made you want to start all over again. Nothing about it felt like watching a bad Michael Bay flick.

System Shock 2‘s formula should have been spread far and wide and polished to a mirror shine by now. But instead, after 14 long years, that formula has been largely forgotten. 

Source: GOG.com.

There’s nothing dangerous or memorable about BioShock Infinite‘s gameplay. While players must still hunt for ammo, combat is so frequent that bullets are strewn everywhere, and picking them up feels like a chore rather than a relief. The anguish of an empty gun is nowhere to be found, either. Elizabeth replenishes your ammo supply during combat, and when things go south, dying causes you to be magically teleported to a safe location with spare magazines in your pockets. There’s no longer any danger. Skill and cunning aren’t really rewarded anymore.

Not even the game’s "vigors" manage to spice up combat. Most of them basically do the same thing: stall bad guys for a few seconds and inflict a small amount of damage. Using a vigor at the right time can mean the difference between a cleared battlefield and a forced resurrection, but there’s nothing hugely satisfying about the process. It just adds more steps to the tedium of depleting each enemy spawn point.

The most depressing thing about BioShock Infinite, though, is that it’s actually one of the more original shooters out there. Compared to the endlessly multiplying Call of Duty clones, its gameplay is textured and tinged with depth and variety. While I was able to beat BioShock Infinite and derive pleasure from the experience, I’ve had to stop myself from playing war-themed shooters altogether. Their single-player campaigns are just awful. The last one I bothered to finish was Battlefield 3, and I hated everything about it.

I’m not sure who or what to blame. Maybe this is all an attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Maybe game studios are so intent on catering to brain-dead 14-year-olds with Xbox 360s that they’ve lost sight of what makes games fun. If that’s the case, then there may be little hope. It’s entirely possible that the next crop of consoles will bring us unimaginably pretty games with sugar-free, decaffeinated gameplay that’s as boring as ever. That would be even more soul-crushing than BioShock Infinite‘s failings.

Our only hope is that, eventually, even 14-year-olds will get sick of playing the same game over and over. They’ll start to clamor for better games, where interactivity involves more than just pointing and aiming. And game developers will deliver. It might seem unlikely, but I remember being 14 quite well. It was around the time System Shock 2 came out, and I didn’t toss that game aside for something with more instant gratification. I dug in, and I loved it.

Comments closed
    • SBJ_Eagle
    • 6 years ago

    I can see both sides of this issue. I think that a few studios have continued to (slowly) release good FPSes, although they are becoming harder to find. I’ve got to admit that I’m probably a little biased here, I prefer games where the gameplay is a bit more than simply shooting masses of enemies and I generally avoid the horror and most of the sci-fi realm when it comes to shooters as they are simply not good enough (pacing is my problem with a lot of them, I like being able to choose how I confront enemies).

    The overuse of cutscenes is probably nowhere as evident as in the Call of Duty: BlackOps series where I must agree that it seems as if the developers are trying to make a vaguely interactive movie.

    As for good shooters, they’re still out there, it’s just difficult to find them. And some of the best are the simpler ones. I’m still disappointed from the retirement of America’s Army 2.x for version 3 as the gameplay descended so far as to have been laughable (if it wasn’t so sad). The Call of Duty franchise has consistently (until their Black Ops attempts) been among the best at maintaining the quality of their shooters. While there is no denying that the games are ‘on rails’ so to speak, the immersion is beyond anything else I’ve ever experienced. Half Life 2 proved to be decent, although no match for Half Life and the assorted offshoots, in either story or in gameplay.

    It does say something sad about the world of modern shooters that Team Fortress 2 might be one of the better shooters currently out there… I do agree with some of the other posters on here, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic was a great game (and the Mount and Blade series is worth looking at as well, at least as a casual game)., but the thing is that most of the games that provide really good gameplay (let alone revolutionary) are several years old and aging fast (I know that I’ve had some serious problems getting some of my favorites to run under Windows 7).

    I’d almost have to say that the best first person game out there right now is Skyrim… nowhere near what I want to play when I want an FPS experience, but it is the only thing that seems to come close to combining a good storyline, good gameplay and replayability.

    • sammiej230oo
    • 6 years ago
    • espetado
    • 6 years ago

    This is, luckely, one of the very, very few times I read a bad entry from TR.

    We got older and with that, a lot more demanding. We saw and played it all. We grew up and we can fill in the definition of a good game, in any genre. Our kids can’t do that, yet. Kids love these kind of games. And it works in the other way too; kids hate the games you want to play these days. Companies just do not make those kind of games and expect to make as much cash.

    But I do get the frustration. As for myself: I haven’t touched the game for reasons stated in this article.

    You are too old to not know why gaming companies make the choices they do. That should’ve been reflected in the article.

    • melissanxel032x
    • 6 years ago
    • PenGun
    • 6 years ago

    Stalker! Go play it, oh wait it’s too hard for you.

    Am mostly done with BI and it’s better than the first one but as Cyril says the shooter part, like the first one, is pretty lame.

    Stalker takes real dedication but offers immersion and a massive back story. BI is a throwaway romp that’s good for a few hours fun. Excellent story though i must admit.

      • Cyril
      • 6 years ago

      [url<]https://techreport.com/blog/12153/s-t-a-l-k-e-r-in-the-zone[/url<] [url<]https://techreport.com/blog/15499/thoughts-on-s-t-a-l-k-e-r-clear-sky[/url<] 😉

        • PenGun
        • 6 years ago

        I say that to everyone. Nice articles, yer book’s pretty good too. 😉

        I keep hoping someone will stuff a better engine into that series but with the right patches and mods it is very playable. I know of nothing I enjoy even half as much.

        Somehow being pinned down by one hit snipers with almost no health, 1 med pack, little ammo, and a pack of dogs just starting to get your scent is amazing fun. Fighting your way into a general shelter you just made it to, in front of an emission, and discovering it’s full of baddies is something no other game has come close to in my book. You understand there is no scripting, it really was bad luck those guys were there.

      • clone
      • 6 years ago

      Stalker: Call of Pripyat got it right… I found I’ve gone back to play Stalker: SOC the most because it was larger and that game had easier to find visible artifacts and they just really got the atmosphere perfect in that game.

      with Stalker Clear Sky it was a fantastic game until you crossed the bridge leaving all your “stuff” behind…. I couldn’t believe it, it devolved into a first person shooter which while Stalker CS is solid as such was such a dramatic departure from…. really hurt it for me and I never finished the game the 2nd time around.

      still it was a good game.

      with Stalker Call of Pripyat they got it as close to perfection as Half Life 2 did while making it a harder and longer game… I loved it, the only thing is I had to wait before playing it a 3rd time through so that I would forget the details of the game.

      Stalker is about exploring and being wary the whole time…. especially early into the game during nighttime when it’s best to just go to the Skadovsk and sleep it off.

    • RdVi
    • 6 years ago

    I completely agree with this article. I loved Bioshock Infinite – it’s the best shooter I’ve played in a long time. All aspects besides the gameplay mechanics are simply superb. Bioshock Infinite has really highlighted my preference for surrealism over realism; which is much of the reason I have given up on generic ‘war’ titles also, but I don’t think it is realism that has spoiled the gameplay at all. The Mechanics are mostly old school, with iron sights added and better weapon feedback. The lack of regenerating health and the fact that there is are pickups everywhere are also very old school game mechanics. Even though I love these throwbacks to the golden days, all of these facts are the reason I agree with the article. I’m not saying new shooters do it better – on the contrary – but after a while I found the gameplay jarring and overall it really got in the way of a great story.

    My girlfriend wants to play this game because of the art/setting/story, but I can’t see her getting through the shooting elements myself. Changing the game to cater to players like her would be seen as selling out to the casuals to most, but I really do think otherwise. They need to work on the gameplay pacing. Tone it down a lot, like the article said, make battles less frequent but more memorable.

    Overall what I’ve ended up wanting from this game is only usually delivered in _very rare_ 3rd person games. Why is that a restriction though? Why cant there be 1st person games that don’t have to trace their lineage back to Wolf3d, Doom, Quake, Unreal, CoD, etc.. I’m seeing some promising 1st person perspective Indie games have come out lately, as well as the now older Amnesia: The Dark Descent. This, IMO, is a step in the right direction for me. Whether a sizable audience agrees is another matter.

    • Chelseyg1244
    • 6 years ago
    • brucethemoose
    • 6 years ago

    [quote<] Maybe this is all an attempt to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Maybe game studios are so intent on catering to brain-dead 14-year-olds with Xbox 360s that they've lost sight of what makes games fun. [/quote<] I remember being brain dead, being ~14, and playing Halo, Halo 2, cod 4, and all the other sequels I completely agree 100%: playing games with the exact same FPS mechanics over and over again felt like banging my head against a brick wall, even back then. But, from my perspective, alot of companies (and people) misunderstand what's going on here. The Cod/Halo style FPS isn't an instant addiction recipe for middle-high school console gamers: that's why we're seeing so many heavily marketed FPSs fail in the market. I, like most kids from my generation, played Halo campaigns for the lore, and played Cod4/Halo 2 multiplayer because all our friends played it too (which made it fun). As other siblings/friends joined in, the Cod franchise essentially snowballed into the monstrosity that it is today. Also, Cyril, you need to look deeper into the market. There's some great, indie gameplay out there that you won't find in the headlines.

    • TakinYourPoints
    • 6 years ago

    And this is why over the last several years I’ve moved from being an FPS nut to almost exclusively Starcraft 2 and DOTA 2. Based on the massive audiences both these games have I reckon many others feel the same way.

    Today the peak concurrent users for Bioshock Infinite on Steam was almost 20k, while the peak user count for DOTA 2 was 300k.

    FPS still peaked for me with Quake and Quake 3. On-rails theme park rides don’t really do it for me unless they are [i<]really[/i<] well done, and even then there is no longevity. I really did enjoy and appreciate Bioshock Infinite, but it there's nothing there to sink one's teeth into from a mechanics/gameplay POV. With RTS games and DOTA you never really stop learning, improving, or have trouble finding new challenges.

    • One Sick Puppy
    • 6 years ago

    Just imagine how much fun a young person’s gaming experiences would be if they progressed backwards – games would get better and better, instead of worse and worse. What’s the problem with old games, anyway? They’re not as pretty and that’s about it as far as the game itself goes. Trying to get a hold of some of them might be difficult, and then installing them on a modern OS… but still, it would be worth it and probably quite low-cost.

    Big business developers are there to make money and they are well aware that quality does not necessarily equal relatively more revenue.

    The problem isn’t with the games. It’s with the market. Us old-timers are penny pinching and quick-to-criticize compared to the easy-to-please-spending-their-parents-cash 14 year olds. As such, games are made primarily for them. And keep in mind that children are educated with much lower standards these days, so a 14 yo today is quite different from past generations.

    Suffice to say, if you’re experienced enough to be aware of the state of gaming today, you’re probably observant enough to see that creativity is out there, but it’s mostly indie developers that are driven by real passion, creativity and integrity.

      • Darkmage
      • 6 years ago

      Having just passed my [mumble mumble] birthday, I think a lot of this common despair over modern video games is selective memory. We all fondly remember the great games of yesteryear, such as [i<]Half Life I & II[/i<] and [i<]Quake 3[/i<] and other innovative FPS games. But we forget 1) how limited those games actually were, and 2) part of their charm was that they introduced new game mechanics. [i<]Half Life[/i<] had, for its time, an amazing enemy AI. An enemy that would react to a grenade before it exploded! An enemy that would take cover! An opening cinematic that was rendered in the game engine! [i<]Half Life 2[/i<] had the gravity gun and a physics model that allowed for some fantastic game play. Who doesn't fondly remember slinging a buzzsaw blade ricocheting down a hallway towards headcrab zombies? Sure, [i<]Call of Duty part IX[/i<] is more of the same. But do you remember the awesomeness of [i<]Rise of the Triads[/i<]? [i<]Hexen[/i<]? How about [i<]Soldier of Fortune[/i<]? No? Of course not. They sucked. Completely forgettable and unworthy of everlasting fondness, mostly because they were more of the same. On the positive side, in 15 years you won't remember [i<]Call of Duty 2[/i<] any more than you will [i<]Hexen II[/i<].

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 6 years ago

    You need to play Spec Ops: The Line.

    • echo_seven
    • 6 years ago

    I have a theory that I admittedly can’t back up with much hard data.

    It’s that the changes in our games started happening when AAA game companies started trying to micromanage the “fun” and “user experience” their games delivered, and in an effort to achieve more consistent “quality control” (i.e. greater assurance that people would like their game).

    I remember this article from Wired way back that epitomizes this approach:

    [url<]http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/magazine/15-09/ff_halo[/url<] [url<]http://www.polygon.com/2012/10/24/3538296/data-entry-risk-management-and-tacos-inside-halo-4s-playtest-labs[/url<] I would guess this general sort of approach was followed outside of Microsoft, as well. This sounds like a great idea in theory (for me, it seems to explain exactly why we have the games we have today), but it's way too easy for a game designer to spoil the player and give them everything they want, when they're faced with hard data saying that players are becoming frustrated at a particular spot (and so risk losing that player and future customer). Since this approach is unable to reproduce/systematize that sort of "long-term reward because I stuck with it" enjoyment of the older games, the AAA game companies just don't risk it, and drift towards scripted and controlled environments where they can be absolutely sure the user is getting the "fun" experience they intend. That's my theory. Fortunately, now we have all these wonderful indie games...

      • NovusBogus
      • 6 years ago

      That’s pretty much it.

      A lot of the decision makers in major game studios are professional classroom-to-boardroom MBAs who don’t really understand or even care about games, they just make decisions based on the one thing they do know: business metrics. It’s a problem that most “mature” companies face, the difference is that since the marginal cost of a game is zero it’s been very easy for Big Content to maintain a de facto monopoly since small competitors can’t just exist outside their sphere of influence in the same way as, say, a hardware store can serve a neighborhood that’s not big enough for a Walmart. But crowdfunded indie games will probably change this since suddenly people with ideas can secure financing without dealing with the aforementioned MBAs who say no to anything that lacks a sexy pie chart.

    • Ashman9001
    • 6 years ago

    The main reason? Companies make games to make money. As much money as possible.
    If they could remake pong with better graphics and make billions then they would. But they can’t.

    It’s all an extension of the maturity of any market; large franchises spend most of their money on reliable investments so that they can make a lot of money. This means 2 main things: copying of reliable elements, and risk aversion.
    Games are formulaic these days, because they know how to make them, they know how to sell them, and they know people will buy it and it will make them money. So they make what is essentially the same game, and just tweak a few things along the way. Early on this is a fantastic way for gameplay to evolve (think of early 3D gaming) but eventually leads to stagnation (current 3D gaming)
    When markets hit the growth and maturation phases there is very little incentive for innovation, because they can make a high quality, boring game and they have a very good chance of it being financially profitable, potentially very profitable.

    Ultimately, the people who run gaming companies have to report to the financial stakeholders who say “make me games that make money! Lots of money!” and this is a reliable way to do it.

    If they make something new, and as such requires more developer time/money, or is not already popular and reliable, then it has to stand on creative merit alone, and is financially much riskier. As such, there’s less money behind it.
    Think of the Kickstarter story of Double Fine games and Tim Schafer. Early in the video he says “if I went to a publisher right now and pitched an adventure game they’d laugh in my face!”
    In a normal gaming/publishing company, I imagine the same thing happens, but with most drastic changes. If a creative says “I’ve got a great idea, we’ll make ammo almost impossible to find!” the bosses say “well, that hasn’t tested well in market research or previous games, so NO. Let’s stick to small changes.”.

    Until you get a enough people with a brilliant/innovative idea and the ability to make it happen, and make it successful, things are going to change slowly.

    • Game_boy
    • 6 years ago

    The game developers REALLY want to be movie directors. They want their big story come to life with CG and setpieces. They’ve forgotten they are making games for customers and not for themselves.

    Look at Nintendo. They tried Wii Sports and it sold amazingly, but they got bored and went back to pushing 3D games that no one wants and crazy Japanese stuff that will never sell to the mass market. And so they made their first annual loss in 100 years, right off the back of the Wii printing money. They know how to make games that sell, they just don’t want to.

    • WaltC
    • 6 years ago

    My own thinking is that games like Doom & Quake (especially like Quake 3) went a long way to ruining gaming over all. When Carmack was getting the world to beta test Quake 3 for him, and pumping out patch after patch before the final release, I remember thinking, “Who is going to *like* this? It’s like shooting fish in a barrel, a twitch fest, and it’s so bo-o-o-o-o-o-oring! The whole game is just people running around shooting each other, over and over again! This won’t fly.”

    Shows how much I knew…;)

    I am hands down an rpg gamer and always will be, I guess. I actually liked Quake 2 and Unreal/return to Nali (or whatever it was called–I still have both games installed today)–because they came with smidgeons of story and were single player and I didn’t shoot other people I killed monsters. I even sort of halfway liked the first Unreal Tournament, even though it was a Quake 3 copy cat in which more people did more running around while shooting to kill each other. Yay fun. not. All the rest of the UT’s you can stick a fork in for all I care (besides, Epic wimped out and went exclusively to consoles.)

    I guess I am out of touch with the majority of gamers who love twitch fests instead of stories and puzzles that are at least marginally related to the plot. Cyril, if you must cast aspersion, then lay the blame squarely on the brain-dead “shooter” game format. That’s where I lay the blame. Many studios today unfortunately think that if there are no guns and ammo involved with which the player tries to shoot other human beings then the game idea isn’t any good and won’t fly. But…

    Thank goodness for the massive success of Skyrim, and judging by inXile’s Kickstarter triumph of $4.2M raised in 30 days for a successor to Planescape Torment, it’s becoming obvious to a lot of people that the “shooter” format is getting really long in the tooth and people hunger for a lot more than the format has to offer. So I think things are looking up, definitely. Won’t happen overnight, but change is a’ comin…

    • Meadows
    • 6 years ago

    Sweatshopking!
    I’m posting this in a separate thread to increase the chances it will be noticed.

    Stop with your ridiculous “but she looks like she’s 17” asshattery. I couldn’t care less if she looked like she was [b<]7[/b<]. If this is what grown men need to keep them from doing it in the real world, then so be it, let them be. Worked for Japan.

      • sweatshopking
      • 6 years ago

      [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Japan[/url<] it's the TOP destination for girls in the WORLD. you can feel free to disagree with me, but japan's world leading problems with sexuality isn't the country to use as a model.

        • Meadows
        • 6 years ago

        That’s the [i<]strawest[/i<] man ever this year. The article says "human", not "girls". and makes no mention of Japan being "the top". I was referring to the fact that ever since pedobear manga material (and related stuff) increased in popularity in Japan, real-world deeds of the same type have declined in numbers. You like browsing wikipedia, so look up this one, if you want. If this is the end result of such media growing in viewership, then why should I be against it? REGARDLESS of all this, BioShock had a character who was [b<]adult[/b<] by [i<]any and all[/i<] standards, and just because you have impaired vision doesn't make it [i<]not[/i<] so.

          • sweatshopking
          • 6 years ago

          no mention of the top?
          [quote<] In 2005 Irene Khan, then the Secretary General of Amnesty International, stated that the country was the biggest receiving country for human trafficking and there were a lot of people being trafficked from Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, South America, to Japan.[5] [/quote<] as for the issue declining, the [url<]http://www.npa.go.jp/english/syonen2/The_situation_of_child_protection_in_Japan.pdf[/url<] Japanese police force lists an almost 9% increase year on year of sexual assaults on minors. that is a few years old, but it's the most recent i could find in a few minutes. As for the issues with japan, the age of consent is Japan is 13, so legally, there, a 13 year old is fair game. It's lower than syria, uzbekistan, and the only other nation in the world as low is spain, tied for 13 (4 japanese province have it higher). I don't know about you, but I don't know a 13 year old that should be considered mature enough to make that call. Obviously, a great many people will disagree, and fondly recall how they lost their virginity, and damn it, it was great! Since a 13 year old is legal, it reduces the crime rates for the nation, since the standard is much lower. however, 1999 Health Ministry’s survey suggested that roughly 13% of high school girls have participated in enjo kosai (amateur prostitution, usually with older men). almost 40% of japanese men pay for sex, one of the highest in the world, according to these guys: [url<]http://prostitution.procon.org/sourcefiles/is-trafficking-in-human-beings-demand-driven-a-multi-country-pilot-study.pdf[/url<] you're welcome to disagree with me, but 13% of school children are accepting money for sex, 40% of men are paying for it, 2 of the highest stats in the world, sexual assaults against minors are surging 9% a year, tell me again how it's working out for them? I would also say that while i've enjoyed this discussion (of course, i do love to discuss!!) it seemingly seems to be more passionately debated than i was worried about. while I do think they did a crappy job on her design, i didn't see it as THAT big a deal. there is plenty of animated characters i think are poor representations of women, and like i've said before, I do have a mom with womens studies degrees, so that might make me more sensitive than your average guy.

      • tipoo
      • 6 years ago

      That debate aside, she *WAS* 17, he said she looked like she was 12. Just for accuracy’s sake.

        • Meadows
        • 6 years ago

        Details notwithstanding.

          • sweatshopking
          • 6 years ago

          that’s my entire point. i didn’t say she WAS 12, just that she LOOKED 12.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 6 years ago

            Well then, maybe the problem isn’t the game, it’s you.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            sure

            • MadManOriginal
            • 6 years ago

            If you think she looks 12, you’re around some seriously developed 12 year-olds a lot more than you are regular females. Granted the looks are ‘mixed’ with the big doe-like eyes, but there’s a wide variation in how females develop. I’ve known women in their mid-20s who look ‘younger’ than that, and ones who look very similar to this character (boobs but girlish face, and sometimes with a personality to match the girlishness.) Likewise I’ve known 20+ year-olds who look like they’re 16 year-old jailbait. I’m not promoting pedophilia with the following, but age is just a number within reason – 1 day separates 17 from 18, and yet you act like this legal line in the sand is also a physical line in the sand.

            Basically, you’re taking a generalization and applying it to one specific case. Generalizations are ok, but when looking at a specific case they can fall apart.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            I’ve said that there is no magic date, and that people mature at different speeds. I’m not sure what’s confusing about this. I also agree that women develop at different speeds. I just felt like her design was a mixture of young teens with adult, in a way that i didn’t feel was necessarily appropriate. i’d say the same thing for ariel, belle, jasmine, etc. it’s another poor example of the representation of females in animation.

            I’m not saying there is a legal line in the sand, i’m saying that old men chasing children is not good for society.

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            What you’re saying is inappropriate, faux wisdom that stems from your own interpretations only.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            cool story. call it what you want. you haven’t answered the data you requested i collect. i guess it’s easier to refute the man than his ideas. but It’s not just my ideas, there are a great many people who would agree with me. ask a feminist. they love to complain about this stuff. the science behind pervy old men is clear. call it false if you want. it’s not skin off my nose. I’m happy being self righteous 😛

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            But she didn’t.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            we can disagree, i guess. you didn’t respond to my studies.

    • Aprilg039xoxo
    • 6 years ago
    • ptsant
    • 6 years ago

    Play ARMA II if you’re looking for memorable fights. The truth is, most people don’t want to struggle. I can understand that. When I come back from work, I’d rather just have the easy satisfaction of button-pushing than crawl for 30 min only to be killed at the first fight. Don’t get me wrong, I have enormous respect for people who enjoy ARMA and other ultra-realistic, survival etc horrors. I just can’t find the strength to do that. And, by the way, Bioshock I had some really memorable fights. Whenever I heard a big daddy approach I was really scared and prepared for a long and tough skirmish…

    • Mr. Eco
    • 6 years ago

    The last good FPS games, w/o scripting and rails – Half-life, Far Cry 1.

      • Glix
      • 6 years ago

      But both those games had scripting and rails…

      • enzia35
      • 6 years ago

      There’s a level named “On a Rail” on Half-Life.

        • Meadows
        • 6 years ago

        In fact, I’m willing to bet that contributed to creating the term “rail shooter” (besides funhouses, of course).

          • auxy
          • 6 years ago

          The term “rail shooter” has been around long before Half-Life. It was used to describe Virtua Cop.

    • link626
    • 6 years ago

    I finished bioshock too, and I feel the same way. It is so boring.

    I’ve played enough shooter games for now.

    • Rakhmaninov3
    • 6 years ago

    Return to Zork and Serious Sam need to have a beautifully modern baby.

    • darktiger138
    • 6 years ago

    That’s why I want to get into the gaming industry, so I can hopefully make more in-depth games and give my input into what goes out in todays market, just wait a few more years guys, I’ll do whatever I can to make a change!

    • Vrock
    • 6 years ago

    There was a time when you had to be smart to own a gaming computer. That meant the games were geared for smart people. Now that any moron can use a computer, games are geared toward any moron. This is the price we pay for making PCs commodities/appliances.

    • odizzido
    • 6 years ago

    Survival FPS games are my favourite as well. There have been a few good ones, like STALKER or vampire bloodlines, but they are few and far between.

    Of course, you have to wonder if the games are simply too easy these days, or if you are really good after playing FPS games for 20 years.

    I do miss rocket jumping and a nice quick movement speed. So many FPS games these days it feels like your character is moving through molasses.

    edit————–

    Oh one more thing that I think a lot of games are missing is long term difficulty. By this I mean that if you don’t do so well in a fight you might be hurt or be low on ammo for the next. If you door poorly again you will have even less health and ammo and you will feel that you are losing the battle.

    In new games with regenerating health and unlimited ammo, you either survive or die on each fight and they are largely independent. There is no “oh man, the cost me a lot of health, I need to be careful or I will die soon” anymore.

    • flip-mode
    • 6 years ago

    Cyril –

    Nice blog post. You got me “right in the feels”. I got BSI and TR from the Never Settle 2 bundle. BSI is flat – like a 2-day old soda. I can’t get into it at all.

    Tomb Raider, on the other hand, is working for me. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty darn good.

    A curious thought: are we just getting older? Too jaded? I dunno, if that were the case then wouldn’t it be the same with movies – such that we’d no longer find any of them worth watching? That’s not the case; good movies keep on coming.

    So, is this blog post in any way an antithesis of the Crysis 3 post? It feels like it.

      • oldog
      • 6 years ago

      I am playing BioShock Infinite right now and my sentiments echo Cyril’s. I too fond Tomb Raider more visceral and compelling in terms of game play.

    • TAViX
    • 6 years ago

    For the FPS hater:
    Obviously you haven’t played first Deus Ex, first Far Cry, first and second Unreal, Half Life, Thief, or any other games BEFORE console ports era. Today’s FPS have almost nothing in common with the ones made more than 10 years ago. Except graphics, they all went down pretty badly.

      • Eldar
      • 6 years ago

      Nice list–to that I’d add Descent. As far as more recent games that I’ve thought had great game play Splinter Cell (great update on the ideas in Thief) and Portal (sheer genius).

    • Crackhead Johny
    • 6 years ago

    Half Life and HL:Opposing Force are ancient by now. I’d say those really hit the tension + game play + story.
    Maybe Metro 2033 or Dishonored? I bought them on steam but haven’t played them yet.

    It also has to be decided what the world really wants from FPS. Tactical shooters like Battlefield of Duty Honor seem to dominate. Pure pure FPS has fallen to what? Serious Sam’s latest?
    I think the divide probably started with Counter Strike, but has now been beaten to death.
    Tactical Horror games are popular.

    Maybe you are just waiting for HL 3?

      • Crackhead Johny
      • 6 years ago

      Well I fired up Metro 2033 just for you.

      Yep, it is what you are looking for. Also I should note that its default difficulty is significantly more difficult than Bioshock Infinite’s 1999 mode.

      It is rough but I think it will scratch your itch.

    • axeman
    • 6 years ago

    I don’t disagree with all the posts, but really, what do you expect from a FPS. I mean, the point is to run around with a gun shooting things! I haven’t played FPSes since the original UT. Whenever I see gameplay of a new one, it is almost the exact same gameplay with better graphics. Indie games is where the real innovation is. When the FPS genre was invented, it was small developers who would have been considered ‘indie’ nowadays.

      • Crackhead Johny
      • 6 years ago

      To be fair when Doom, Wolfenstein, and such came out the developer landscape was nothing like it is now.
      Most studios were what would be considered indie… Including Electronic Arts… Makers of Archon and other great games!

    • auxy
    • 6 years ago

    [b<]I really wish I could write a proper site post rather than this comment, because I have a complete rebuttal to the blog post here.[/b<] This article is ridiculous and I'm offended that it made it to the front page. Yeah, okay, Bioshock Infinite's combat is boring and System Shock 2 is amazing, and nobody makes games like that anymore. [b<]WHATEVER![/b<] [b<]You REALLY need to play more games, and get away from the AAA garbage.[/b<] Of course [i<]Infinite[/i<] has horrible gameplay and good production; it had a huge budget. All of your really big-budget games these days have awful gameplay; look at GTA IV, the aforementioned BF3, the Uncharted series (which should have been movies, not games), and so on. It's only in the sub-AAA and especially indie segments that you see real emergent gameplay, in games like [b<]Dark Souls[/b<] and [b<]Warframe[/b<]. [sub<]Not that those games don't have their problems, but they're a lot more interesting than crappy Bioshock.[/sub<] How about [b<]Resident Evil 6[/b<], which is almost the opposite of Bioshock Infinite, with laughable dialogue and a yarn-ball of a plot, yet with amazing, context-sensitive gameplay and real difficulty? How about [b<]Nier[/b<], which is the most engaging mix of high-action brawler and bullet-hell style gameplay I have ever seen? How about [b<]Lost Planet 2[/b<], which merges the core elements of shooter games and mecha action for the best giant-monster-hunting this side of [b<]Monster Hunter[/b<]? (which is, by the way, another amazing game series largely unappreciated by Western gamers.) There are so many more games I could praise; [b<]Rusty Hearts[/b<] immediately comes to mind, as does [b<]Dark Messiah of Might and Magic[/b<]. Someone else in the thread mentioned [b<]Earth Defense Force[/b<], which is awesome. Admittedly, not all of these games are shooter games, but they contribute to the point that AAA games are the boring ones. [sub<]On a related note, you might notice I've largely praised Japanese games; there's a reason for that, and it's not simply because I'm an Asian-American myself, and it's not because I'm some kind of [i<]Nihon-jin[/i<]-wannabe: it's because moreso than anyone else, Japan is innovating in games. There's a stereotype that Japanese games are stuck in the past, like with the Metal Gear Solid series and with the various JRPGs that harken back to 16-bit era turn-based games. [b<]The reality is quite different[/b<], however; it is the Western games that continually pump up the budgets for more and more engine optimizations, more detailed textures, and more big-name voice actors, where the gameplay design takes a backseat, and where most of these boring samegames come from. Even your JRPGs are quite different than you probably remember, these days, with action combat and branching storylines.[/sub<] Still, that's offtopic; [b<]the point is, it's not that there aren't interesting shooter games anymore, you're just playing the wrong games.[/b<] You're that guy lamenting that smartphones aren't innovating when all he's ever used is an iPhone. Oh, and seriously: go play [b<]Warframe[/b<]. (・`ェ´・)つ [i<][sub<](edited for grammar and spelling)[/sub<][/i<]

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 6 years ago

      Everything I’ve read has said that RE6 is terrible, LP2 gained adequate notoriety on this site both within video card reviews and forum posts, Monster Hunter is an extremely niche title (and rightfully so, its extremely “awkward” to play), Nobody on here has even heard of nor wants to play some random anime-f2p-action-mmo-frankenstein, and Dark Messiah is ages old and a whole other discussion of gaming. And I don’t know enough about EDF to comment.

      I wasn’t expecting Infinite to be good, but it was. The combat is lacking, but the game is deserving of praise overall. I dunno.

        • auxy
        • 6 years ago

        You read that RE6 is terrible because it’s hard, and the mass market doesn’t want that. It’s also not particularly faithful to its roots as a Resident Evil game (although it really is, but haters can’t see past the updated gameplay.) You should really try it before saying stupid crap like “everything I’ve read”, because that’s meaningless next to personal experience.

        All of these games have two things in common: they’re [b<]HARD[/b<] and [b<]DIFFERENT[/b<]. Of course the mass market doesn't like them. Maybe you should give them a shot before going "wah, these games are unpopular so they must be bad!" like everyone else.

        • NeelyCam
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]Everything I've read has said that RE6 is terrible[/quote<] I really liked the co-op in RE5. I really [i<]hated[/i<] the co-op in RE6 for one of the single-player characters. It was like a generic vanilla soldier was injected into the single-player story and was there just for the ride when the main character did her thing. The story was also so boring I almost killed myself... Instead, I headed out to Target and bought Borderlands 2. Then fun times were had by all.

          • auxy
          • 6 years ago

          Are you talking about for Ada Wong? Her campaign was meant to be single-player and they added co-op after fans complained.

            • NeelyCam
            • 6 years ago

            Yes; exactly that.

            Thank g*d for GameStop

      • Jacu
      • 6 years ago

      Writer has a point that many of the big shooter games are just graphics updates to the decades-old repetitive formula.

      I have actually enjoyed Crysis 3 and Metro 2033 which I think are a bit different and have an interesting mood in them. But understanding the game-producers point of view we have to admit that a lot of kids that buy games dont want anything else than the simple basic shooter with a lot of different looking guns. BF games are fun when playing multiplayer.

      Thx Auxy for recommendations of better games. I will check out that Lost Planet 2. Maybe even that Warframe.

        • auxy
        • 6 years ago

        °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖° [b<]YOU'RE WELCOME![/b<] Metro2033 does definitely add some real flavor to the FPS genre -- note it was developed by a relatively small studio! Hehe. Hope to see you around in Warframe! I bet you can guess my username. (゚、 。`フ

          • shaq_mobile
          • 6 years ago

          +1 forever for those fantastic ascii’s

        • sweatshopking
        • 6 years ago

        I’ve never played it, but this would concern me: [url<]http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/988736-lost-planet-2/index.html[/url<]

          • auxy
          • 6 years ago

          Most of my favorite games reviewed poorly. You should stop letting mass media dictate your tastes.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            I don’t let them dictate my “tastes” but if something is universally panned, i’d be hesitant to buy it. if there is a wide swing, i’d check it out. I have a number of games that aren’t great in scores that are ok, and then some that are reviewed great i don’t care for. It’s just something to think about.

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            I wouldn’t even spare the thought. You’re a totally different person from someone else, and likes and dislikes are subjective. I don’t bother with biased game reviews (that is, ones that give a “score”) and neither should you — just research the game for factual data and make your own decision.

            • alphadogg
            • 6 years ago

            Yeah, but if many different people give a game a low score, there’s very high chances it just generally sucks. We’re not each beautiful and unique snowflakes.

      • Bensam123
      • 6 years ago

      I would argue that games need to have more then unique elements in gameplay. A lot of indie and small game stuff is very experimental, but because of it, it’s not very well flushed out. You need all elements, just not unique gameplay. It’s like people who exclaim how awesome indie is and AAA titles blow… Anything with good graphics is an abomination and can’t possibly have good gameplay…

      You can really find more variation in mods. Moddb definitely has some unique ones if you spend time paging through them. They aren’t all fan remakes or slightly different variations of better games. Modding in general has seemingly been forgotten with the uptake of indie gaming. But the baseline is lower for mods. They aren’t expected to be full fledged games, so you can look at experimental gameplay and try out new and different things without spending money on them.

      But when it comes to full fledged titles my baseline is much higher and Cyril is right that a lot of production level games suffer from stagnation. Not just AAA games, but AA games (if there is such a thing). I’ve heard about and looked at some of the games you suggested and they are very much franken games as lil points out. I wouldn’t actually pay money for them, heck I wouldn’t play them. That’s really a second point. I’ll pay for whatever I want to play, it doesn’t need to be f2p or cost money. I’ll spend money on whatever I enjoy and deem worthy of it. I don’t buy crappy games simply because they’re cheap and I don’t play f2p games simply because they’re free.

      Having one good idea you think is going to change the world is fine and dandy, but you need much more then that to make a good game. Really good games are the culmination of multitudes of really great ideas, even if those are largely limited to the game art and story.

      Natural Selection 2 I think is a good example of a AA game that was executed very well and it does much more then simply one great idea. They had to flush it out with everything else that makes a good FPS. Although they definitely can improve upon it, it meets the criteria that gamers come to expect from a good game in addition to good gameplay. That’s something more experimental or unique games don’t have.

        • auxy
        • 6 years ago

        [quote=”Bensam123″<] I've heard about and looked at some of the games you suggested and they are very much franken games as lil points out. I wouldn't actually pay money for them, heck I wouldn't play them. That's really a second point. I'll pay for whatever I want to play, it doesn't need to be f2p or cost money. I'll spend money on whatever I enjoy and deem worthy of it. I don't buy crappy games simply because they're cheap and I don't play f2p games simply because they're free.[/quote<]I don't really know why you posted this. What is a "franken game"? I'm pretty sure lilbuddhaman was referring to the fact that Rusty Hearts draws heavily from classic horror genre tropes by calling it a "franken game".

          • Bensam123
          • 6 years ago

          When you throw a bunch of ‘neat’ things together, set it on blend, and dump out the game. A patch job of ideas or one good idea with relatively little to support the rest of it.

          Frankenstein. While it does work and they are games, we could argue that Frankentstein, despite his animated appearance, didn’t have all the factors of a nurtured well developed healthy young man. We wont go on to argue his psychological state either.

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            Frankenstein was the name of the doctor.

            None of the games I listed are what you described. Please investigate them in more detail.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            I have looked at a few of these titles already they’re lacking even if they have decent aspects to their gameplay. Like a good story, plot, atmosphere, level development, character development… You know other things besides the one unique eye catching aspect to the game.

            Warframe for instance has unique combat, but the rest of the game falls completely flat. RE series of games is just basically survival horror, the storys all suck and there really isn’t much more to them. Newer zombie survival games will eventually take over this series niche (such as WarZ). They never went out of their way to actually improve the game in any meaningful way and I’m sure I’m stepping on a lot of toes here because there are a lot of RE fans.

            Just having one or a couple good elements doesn’t make a game really good. Being a AAA game doesn’t mean it has to be bad or have bad gameplay. Although not a absolute usually when there is a correct balance of elements the game ends up popular and successful (Minecraft being a good example). If the game falls flat, then there is usually a reason for that too.

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            [quote=”Bensam123″<]Warframe for instance has unique combat, but the rest of the game falls completely flat.[/quote<]There is no "rest of the game". If you want to judge a game that has no story as saying "the story is bad", well ... I don't ... really know what to tell you. Do you look at bicycles and think "the motor is weak"? Do you look at monitors with no VGA-in and think "the analog picture quality is poor"? I don't get it.[quote="Bensam123"<]RE series of games is just basically survival horror, the storys all suck and there really isn't much more to them. Newer zombie survival games will eventually take over this series niche (such as WarZ). They never went out of their way to actually improve the game in any meaningful way and I'm sure I'm stepping on a lot of toes here because there are a lot of RE fans.[/quote<]Honestly, this just shows you don't know anything you're talking about.[list<][*<]RE game story is convoluted, but internally consistent and can be compelling upon examination[/*<][*<]RE games haven't been survival horror for 3 games now[/*<][*<]RE games have changed dramatically in the last 3 games (RE6 is basically a tactical shooter)[/*<][*<]There are very few RE fans left because the oldschool RE fans hate the new games and shooter gamers can't understand the complex and textured gameplay of new RE games[/*<][/list<] So, I've basically lost all respect for you. Sorry.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Why is the sky blue? I can expect more from something then what it offers. There is nothing that states I have to be satisfied with one small thing.

            You’re trying to stipulate now and are losing sight of the overall game. Being consistent doesn’t make a story good. Far, far from it.

            If RE6 isn’t remotely like the other RE games it would appears even worse off then. They had a niche at one point and if they just turned into another tactical shooter with monsters, there is really nothing that makes the game unique and I don’t know why you’d mention it (besides it being a long running franchise). A quick look at Twitch would confirm this. Kinda weird that this is directly contradictory to your original point of it having different gameplay and supports what Cyril was originally saying.

            When games get the right mix down of all the fundamental aspects that make a game good (instead of one little nice thing), they do become popular. PS2 for instance doesn’t have a story, yet why is it successful? Minecraft doesn’t have a story either… They have a multitude of things that make their games successful. It’s not just being a MMO or a building game. If Warframe was the cats meow it would become immensely popular as well.

            “So, I’ve basically lost all respect for you. Sorry.”

            Don’t make childish and spiteful comments. If there is something to lose respect over, it’s comments like these.

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            [b<]I can't respect someone who can't be bothered to talk about facts rather than making generalizations and assumptions![/b<] That's the way I feel; I'd apologize, but I'm not sorry at all about it. Call me childish and spiteful if you like, but I have zero tolerance for that sort of behavior! [quote="Bensam123"<]They had a niche at one point and if they just turned into another tactical shooter with monsters, there is really nothing that makes the game unique and I don't know why you'd mention it (besides it being a long running franchise). A quick look at Twitch would confirm this. Kinda weird that this is directly contradictory to your original point of it having different gameplay and supports what Cyril was originally saying.[/quote<] Why does being "a tactical shooter" make it like every other tactical shooter? There's nothing else like RE6; not even RE5, which is the closest. The game is highly methodical in its playstyle; every action relies on a context-sensitive prompt, so it requires a lot of precision and discipline with the inputs; you can't simply spaz out on the controller and expect to succeed. In a lot of ways, it shares that complexity and depth with fighting games -- there's a real learning curve to it, and the market at large doesn't like that. It isn't contradictory at all.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            When you talk about hypothetical constructs, such as designing a game from the ground up you have no choice but to talk about generalizations and go through hypothetical arguments, because this is like arguing what makes up a good book or a good paintining.

            You’re assuming that simply adding one element to a book, painting, or cooking can yield a delicious meal that everyone will find amazing. You’re right that they have some things that merit attention and make them unique, I never argued otherwise. However, I’m arguing for a full fleshed out meal. Something that delves to more then one area of the palette and doesn’t give you a single note course which is often bland, boring, and rarely satisfies.

            You can proclaim how unscientific that is and how little meaning those words actually have as it’s subjective, but at the end of the day people decide what tastes best with their plastic and hours of free time playing. This is not an absolute of what tastes best, but gives you a pretty gosh darn good idea they’ve gotten at least part of the recipe right.

            And if adding elements from other games makes them better, they should do it.

            I will address this: “The game is highly methodical in its playstyle…”

            This is what people find most boring. Being precise doesn’t make people giddy with excitement and it very much becomes tiresome over time, but now we’re starting to argue what line of what paragraph makes a book good when the rest of the book sucks.

            It almost seems like you’re arguing for skill over ingenuity (I’ve actually see this argument a lot, especially when it comes to WoW). I even addressed this in my two page long response further down the page, where developers look at and try to analyze individual aspects of games and end up losing sight of the rest of the game (the engineer approach). Making a game hard doesn’t necessarily make it fun, enjoyable, or unique.

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 6 years ago

          I meant “franken game” as a genre mish-mashing frankenstein, and nothing more…And I would appreciate it if you never associate my name, usertag, or anything even remotely related to “me” with “trope” ever, [i<]Anita[/i<].

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            You’re an imbecile. Please die in real life.

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 6 years ago

            Congratulations, you are now a hypocrite.

            • Cyril
            • 6 years ago

            Please keep it civil. Both of you.

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            Sorry, that’s as civil as I can be to him; it’s my genuine feeling. You guys should add a way to ignore a specific user’s post on the comments.

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            I do not think you know what that word means.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Frankenstein is the name of a book as well and the context I used it in is still appropriate. I don’t know why you guys are getting your knickers in a knot over this.

            If you want to be a doucher, that’s your own prerogative, no reason to act like one though.

            • cynan
            • 6 years ago

            Technically it’s only the first part of the full title, being: “Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus” – one of the most weirdly punctuated book titles of all time. Prometheus reference relating to either the fact that Prometheus was credited with making man from clay and/or that he was involved in giving humans fire, their first piece of dangerous technology (as in reanimation is a dangerous technology). In any case, Prometheus’ involvement in these activities turned out poorly for him, just like things did for Dr. Frankenstein.

            And I don’t see what it being the name of a book has to do with anything. It’s still the name of the Dr., not the monster.

            The “franken” prefix generally refers to something that is assembled haphazardly from parts that were not originally designed to necessarily be together and is made conspicuous by the disharmony (either aesthetically or functionally) of the comprising parts (just like the monster was in the story). It has nothing to do with being of the horror genre. For example, this term is commonly used to distinguish a surround sound system that is comprised of a bunch of re-purposed speakers, etc, from a system comprised of speakers that match or were designed to go together.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            It’s how people commonly refer to the monster. People are just being pedantic now. You know exactly what I was referring to and the expression worked, it’s still very much applicable.

            Congratulations you pretty much used it exactly the same way I did when I first mentioned a franken game (which included having nothing to do with horror).

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            There’s still the problem that none of those are “franken games” by that definition.

            • cynan
            • 6 years ago

            It was at least a little pedantic. Still, calling the monster “Frankenstein” is one of the most common misconceptions in literature. Kind of like all the people who claim that Darwin believed that humans descended from monkeys…

            And the part about the franken-prefix wasn’t directed at you. (hint: the person it was largely directed at is the only other who responded to my above post).

            • auxy
            • 6 years ago

            [quote=”cynan”<]The "franken" prefix generally refers to something that is assembled haphazardly from parts that were not originally designed to necessarily be together and is made conspicuous by the disharmony (either aesthetically or functionally) of the comprising parts (just like the monster was in the story). It has nothing to do with being of the horror genre. [/quote<]Obviously; it's a common idiom in English, but since none of those games are that, I took the best cues I could from the poster's poor grammar and spelling. Sorry for the confusion.

      • clone
      • 6 years ago

      the only games I played that you mentioned were Dark Messiah of Might & Magic and Earth Defense force.

      neither was compelling, with regards to Dark Messiah of Might & Magic I was getting copies of that game free with video cards and giving them away….. universal on that one, everyone I gave it to hated it, more than a few returned it back to me saying they had no interest, I was so surprised to be getting what looked like a decent title back that I installed it and….. “oooh”….. played it for a few hours then dumped it due to lack of interest then threw the last 4 boxes into the trash.

      aren’t you the one who said HL2 was a terrible game because some of the weapons were imprecise while ignoring all of the good that was in that game?

    • Bensam123
    • 6 years ago

    I’m not sure there is one absolute best way to approach this. It sounds like you’re more interested in playing a realistic shooter or survival shooter over one where you endlessly gun down hordes of minion. For some people they like the arcade shooters because you can just sit there, zone out, and start foaming at the mouth for hours on end without a need to quit because you’re frustrated. As someone else mentioned you may have wanted to try the game on a harder difficulty as it would more appropriately suit your play style.

    Although I’ve personally played some games on harder difficulty and since the bots use auto-aim and such you just die X amount of seconds faster and there is nothing you can do about it. You can even tell that they’re scripted to take you down to a certain amount of health and then start missing (BF3 is a good one that did this). So just increasing difficulty wont necessarily make the game better.

    I guess developers are at a loss for creative gameplay and that’s one of the problems with the industry. I do agree that the stories are a lot of times really well written (those aren’t designed by engineers though) and the art direction is often very good (once again not designed by engineers), but the gameplay is lacking. You can almost make a correlation between creativity and who designs it. Game balance, game mechanics, basically how players interact with their environment is designed by engineers, not by artistis. The position of lead developer is something engineers end up in (code monkeys who worked their way up the ladders) and by their trade the gameplay then ends up really methodical and boring, combining elements that are seen in other FPS’s that sell well. Basically a very logical strategy to approach gameplay. The problem being that kills the heart and soul of the game.

    There really specifically isn’t a job role for game designer per say. You can go to college for that specific niche (which is still developing in and of itself), but it’s pretty much guaranteed you wont land a job doing it. Becoming a lead developer is all about working up the ladder inside a company after being a cog or starting your own company to make a game. It’s a coveted position and outsiders aren’t simply let into it. After being at a company X number of years and finally working your way up to the position you end up in the mindset that ‘you know best’ and that the position was earned so you don’t have to listen to anyone else. If you follow some game developments through blogs and PR you can see these trends, WoW is a very good example of it which is currently a train wreck Ghostcrawler is running into the ground because he got into a certain mindset for MoP. Almost no one likes where the game is right now, but they’re continuing on with it.

    I digress, the people that end up in the position of lead designer are usually more of the engineer variety and that has all sorts of problems associated with it when you try to make them do creative things, they simply aren’t trained for it and usually aren’t capable of it. They approach a problem in the most logical and efficient way and deal with the problem that way (like taking the best elements from other games and throwing them together). That is great for coding, but not so much for designing a living breathing world.

    There are exceptions to every rule though. I would definitely disagree with Bioshock being the best shooter of all time though. I think Mass Effect 2 and 2.5 fit that role. The story line, level design, character design, all of it is superb… you actually care about the characters. The gameplay is also very good. There definitely is risk associated with each and every battle and there are always different ways to approach each battle so it’s differentiated. You have a choice between different weapons, guns, combinations between both of them, melee, you can take on different roles (tank, sniper, support, bruiser, mid range, caster), you can switch to different characters and then take on their roles on top of it. Each battle is fun and interesting.

    You can pretty much tell when lead game designers take in creative opinions from others or have a lot of them themselves. Although not a FPS, Guild Wars 2 also had good and unique gameplay that isn’t seen in most other RPGs. WoW is particularly quite dated although they tried to pull in elements from GW2 with MoP and successfully ruined their game because the two types of game play were so different.

    I really think this has a lot to do with the industry as a whole and it may or may not change in the future. Since games either sell or they don’t and there is no real good way of separating the good elements from the bad, if the artists and writers do a superb job and the game sells well (such as with Bioshock), then it’ll be seen as a win for the game designers as well. They could start taking in elements from other industries, such as doing surveys and focus groups, but in the end when your boss is the one causing problems, what are you going to do? That’s essentially what the lead designer is. I haven’t heard about focus groups being done with game design, but forums may fill that role (although I think the information you get from them is a bit different).

    The people that higher the designers are equally at fault, you usually have HR or someone who isn’t very knowledgeable about video games (they still have this problem) pulling in people from the outside based on their resumes. And their resumes are basically “I worked on X game for X amount of years, it sold X amount of copies, and had a metacritic rating of X (if it’s good enough).”, perhaps if they’re more technology oriented you could even throw in coding projects they’ve worked on. Basically the more games they’ve worked on, the more likely they are to land a position (regardless of the content of that game).

    If you go into a position and say “I have this idea to make this world amazing and beautiful.” it has relatively little meaning. As far as HR and higher ups are concerned, ideas are a dime a dozen, which is and isn’t entirely true. There are a lot of mediocre ideas, but only a handful of really good ones (and hence the position we’re in with the industry right now). The people making the hiring decisions can’t differentiate between simply having someone experienced that can put out another PoS or someone that is fresh without a lot of experience, but can add a lot of creative flare to whatever is being produced.

    Obviously if you’re looking at a AAA game with a huge budget (and a lot of risk), you’re going to choose the more experienced candidate as you’d rather have something mediocre that sells decently over something you could lose it all on.

    Oh, there isn’t a entry level position for game designer. I think that’s a pretty big part of this issue as well. Everyone wants a seasoned veteran and if there is a position below lead game designer (which there usually is), their responsibilities and creative freedom are axed by the lead designer or if they aren’t you end up with a hodge podge mess. Two different directions taken by each designer can lead to a awful mess of a game if they don’t agree on things, which is partially why the lead designer has so much power.

    You can see this in WoW and also SC2, where what is happening in the story or different parts of the game don’t synergize well with what you’re capable of doing. SC2 has very methodical and almost ‘unfun’ game play that is specifically designed to cater to the SC crowds and the competitive scene. They tried to spruce it up a bit when playing the campaign, but the epicness of the story is so completely different from the actual gameplay, it completely ruins the immersion when you get into missions. And of course the multiplayer experience is completely different from the singleplayer experience.

    Good games should have all of those things linked together to form a unified and seamless experience. Dawn of War did a very good job of that. League of Legends sort of has this disconnect, but over the last few years they are very much bridging the gap between lore, gameplay, and characters. They’re giving

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      Holy sh*t; did you have a Freaky Friday accident with WaltC?

        • brute
        • 6 years ago

        it looks like he just posted every word on wikey pedia . aint no one gonna read that

          • Bensam123
          • 6 years ago

          I’m glad you think the quality of my opinion is on par with a wikipedia article.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 6 years ago

            It’s not necessarily a compliment, there are some pretty bad Wiki articles. 😉

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            When used in the way that he did, I’ll take what I can get.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 6 years ago

        I too endorse this post, product or service. +1

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        I’m quite vocal and knowledgeable when it comes to video games and their development (it happens when you start looking at ways to make your own). Of course you start to develop your own very elaborate opinions when you get in deep enough.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 6 years ago

          I’m sure you are and I generally enjoy your posts. This is the first time I’ve had to bookmark one for reading later though.

      • auxy
      • 6 years ago

      I actually read the whole post and was a bit entertained; I do agree on the whole, but it seems like your post got cut off, Bensam! Can you post the rest of it?

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        Ah shit I forgot about TR truncating posts now. I really wish TR would tell you if it’s over the character limit or save the rest of the post in your post so you can edit and move it. It’s gone and I don’t remember specifically what I wrote.

        I believe I went on to talk about how LoL offers a unified front between game mechanics, character design, level design, and lore. Fusing all of the aspects of the game into one very well themed and cohesive universe.

        I mentioned Cyril pointing out he wants more from a game (given it was more of a survivalist approach), but what you can actually do to change and revolutionize gameplay is a big question. Wanting more, but not knowing exactly how to deliver it is a big part of the stagnation in the current game industry (he gave a couple decent examples).

        At the end I said I had my own take on what can really improve upon games that would revolutionize the gaming industry as a whole, but I’m saving that for my own game, if and when I get funding. Current games are about one or two generations behind what I’m planning, but aspects are starting to pop up in different games (social community integration for instance). It’ll be quite awhile before someone figures out how to combine all of the different aspects into one cohesive, seamless environment without making it seem like they’re tacked on or simply pilfered from a different game.

        LoL is at about the forefront of social integration right now, but there is so much more they can do.

        I used to give out advice and was quite active in modding and development communities as far as creative input goes (I even worked on a mod for Tribes 2), but after awhile I figured out I simply could stop giving out advice. What I offered was so in front of the curve that I could just design something that would completely blow everything else out of the water instead of trying to inch the industry forward by competing to have ideas heard and possibly used.

        Thanks for reading my post btw… It’s good someone found it provocative.

          • law99
          • 6 years ago

          I enjoyed your post also. Although I can see why you would be voted down on this one (fyi I didn’t vote you down because I don’t really care about the whole premise).

          1. I don’t want social integration. I want decent single player story type gaming. But my breed of gamer is probably slowly becoming extinct in the always-on world.

          2. You have some confidence there… “I could just design something that would completely blow everything else out of the water”. I hope it works out for you. I find ego a bit discomforting myself though. But good luck to you again. I don’t want anyone to fail… except those that should; proof, though, is always in the pudding.

          Edit – I mean I don’t care about the premise of voting.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            You can do both, there is nothing forcing developers to push you into a completely online world unless the game demands it. Some games are too large in scope to be simply limited to a single player experience. Obviously something like Simcity can still remain offline if need be, where as something like Planetside 2 has no choice but to be online because of the entire way the game is setup.

            Social integration as I was referencing it wasn’t necessarily mashing Twitter in game and pretending all is fine and dandy. A lot of games are starting to do it, Blacklight Retribution and RIFT are the two that first come to mind. Both are things no one cares about like ‘Oh I got a new item today!!!”. A more integrated social experience in my opinion is something on the lines of Tribes 2 if you were able to see that before they gutted the game. Forums, news, social experiences, content pages were all integrated in the game from the get go. It was leaps and bounds ahead of it’s time. But Sierra axed the budget and Dynamix had to shutdown almost all of those services and then they were fired all together.

            I still hold Tribes and Tribes 2 in extremely high regard. It was more then a decade before it’s time and it still is.

            You’re right, I can scream to the top of my lungs that I’m going to do something marvelous, but it all comes down to what you actually do. This confidence stems from seeing what other developers are doing and seeing so many different ways they can improve or build upon what they’re already doing, but either chose not to, are limited by their resources at hand, or simply don’t think out.

            I used to be very active in game community forums suggesting different things over the years (as many other people are), but after watching developers usually completely disregard what comes from those forums I thought it was time to stop leaving people things of monetary value where it wont be acknowledged or even thought about. WoW is a perfect example of them finally implementing some ideas, years after they were posted in the suggestion forums. I’m not sure if that’s because they simply don’t check the forums or because they’re too stubborn to implement someone else’s idea, it’s almost tragic.

            On the other hand I’ve seen developers take in waaay too much input from forums too and completely wreck their game because they really have no idea where they’re going with it. Tribes: Vengeance being an example of that, I watched that train wreck from the beginning till the end.

            Alas I’ll still dream of a day when I get funding for such a monstrosity (which indeed is worthy of a dream), but till then I’ll treat you guys to bits and pieces of it, hopefully generating a bit of buzz for myself in the meantime.

            TR is rather unique in the news comment sections are quite active and it’s not just people saying retarded things. They make quite provocative posts and engage in community interaction. It makes it a perfect spot to talk about stuff like this and brainstorm with other people.

            • law99
            • 6 years ago

            Good on you.

            That is a point, which is what is good about this sort of discussion; that is the kind of social integration I would tolerate. In game, specific forums. I think Dark Souls did a good take on it also with the ability to leave messages and such.

            But there is always going to be something about the social side that I’ll never get. I’ve tried throughout my life, and except in short bursts, I’m not that social; it’s just not sustainable. So for me, a game must be good on its own, in the dark, with the lights off. And I mean that metaphorically speaking, not literally.

            Thanks again for the insight.

          • KeillRandor
          • 6 years ago

          Hi. I’ve also been studying games, their mechanics/systems (and the philosophy behind such things) for a long time, and I’ve come to a additional, different conclusion about the problems we have:

          Games simply arn’t recognised and understood for what they are, either in isolation, or (especially) in relation to other activities/behaviour, (art, puzzles, competitions, work and play).

          This is directly affecting what people create, are attempting to create, (and what they think they are creating), in a very inconsistent manner.

          Unfortunately this problem is a symptom of a very basic, fundamental problem with our understanding and perception of (at least the English) language, and IMHO, is potentially one of the biggest problems we have, and without solving this, first, nothing else will make much difference.

          I’m currently writing it up for a friend involved in linguistics at Cambridge University here in the UK, but it’s taking me a while, as it’s easily the hardest thing I’ve ever had to write, since the core of the matter is that we don’t have words to describe and represent what we need them to in the first place, (because our perception is all wrong) – and describing and recognising game, art, puzzle, competition, work and play in relation to each other, is merely a symptom of this.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Interesting, I’m sure there are a lot of different factors that are negatively impacting game development, yours sound plausible as well. My list was definitely not exhaustive.

            There are a probably a few different ways of looking at what you’re talking about and I don’t know if I’m understanding you properly, but it seems like this hits on a few different aspects, such as human development (learning), perception, and social development.

            Currently in the US kids generally don’t grow up learning how to program or how to construct things in a logical or seemingly logical manner. Math is used as a foundation for learning such principles (logic), but doesn’t really have anything kids can outright apply it to so it hands out there as a hypothetical construct. Something we learn to do, but has no real basis in reality. Programming courses are taught later on in school (I think the first time I was offered one was 9th grade), however, they in no way actually tied in with math. I would almost say programming was completely different then how math was taught even though they’re highly dependent on eachother.

            Programming was definitely quite a bit more structured then math was, where you could take mathmatics and apply them to problems. Problems had to be thought out in logical steps in order to accomplish a end result or you ended up with something that wasn’t all that usable or barely did what you want it to and wasn’t useful to anyone else (spaghetti code). Flowcharts definitely help with all of this and was a requirement in every one of my programming courses (into basic programming courses in college, I didn’t take any higher level courses in college) for good reason. Without charts like that people would come up with all sorts of ridiculous ways to code out a problem that don’t even make sense when you sit down to think about them and perhaps that’s part of the problem. People don’t always think out problems or have the capacity to do so (not saying they couldn’t learn to do it if they wanted to). It’s such a big issue that it became a requirement.

            I personally think programming should overtake math at the most basic levels of school and be taught instead of math all the way up through the higher levels, with math being taught on the side as supplemental material and where directly applicable (such as engineering in college and what not). It’s really a direct application of everything math is supposed to teach you and what you should get out of it. I would almost say it’s a evolved form of math. Putting aside living in a world where using programs is part of our day to day lives and it’ll never go away. It’s like being partially literate, but not knowing how to write. People somewhat know how to use and navigate a computer, but not how to create content for a computer.

            Currently programming isn’t really all that well integrated with society and it takes a certain knack for people to be programmers, definitely. I’ve programmed before, but never done it for a living. I couldn’t imagine myself doing it for a living either. Programming is often very lonely from a social perspective as well. There aren’t really coding parties and coding in school isn’t very social in. While I was studying in college, group work became a big aspect of a lot of my classes, especially psychology related ones. It helps you to learn better, foster relationships, and generally allows your skillsets to develop in a way that would apply to a job setting (working in small groups on a bigger project). Coding is still relatively new and people still are trying to figure out how to integrate it into the school system in a way that doesn’t just make it seem like that one kid all alone coding in his basement.

            Being more social in general is always good and coding still hasn’t reached that threshold yet.

            I digress, I’m only talking about the coding aspect. Game development as a whole is multi-leveled as I posted in my first post. For a lead designer you must take into account more then just the coding aspect or logically gluing together pieces. That’s why I compared it to art or writing a good book, only in this case the pieces must be brought down to reality and thought of in a way that has a direct application. It’s really a fusion of a lot of different aspects.

            I’ve seen games like Auxy pointed out where they have this really great idea and I’m sure it means all the world to them, but then they don’t really build off of it, they don’t offer other parts that make up a full healthy game because they’re so stuck on this one aspect or maybe don’t think beyond it. In my consumer psychology course in college we had a discussion about this and idea generation, we were working on our end of the year projects and the professor warned us about getting stuck on ideas, which still happened regardless of the warning. People like to fixate on something they think is really great (which is probably due to a bias) and tend to forget about everything else or don’t put it into context.

            Games are made up of tons of good ideas, the more good ideas the better the game becomes as long as they all fit into the theme.

            Getting back to your original point, I think this does have a lot to do with how people are brought up. I have quite a few friends who are a part of higher education and they’re mainly part of hard sciences, the way they think reflects it. Engineers approach everything in a very logical and methodical fashion, which back to my original post is part of why we have quite a few games that are lifeless. Even engineers that say have a degree in other areas (such as psychology, my brother for instance), still manage to think of everything in a very linear and matter of a fact way.

            Psychology to him is more of a cause and effect relationship even though modern psychology is very open ended with a bunch of different little areas that make up a overall construct (which may or may not disprove or even tie into each other). It’s like knowing something and at the same time rejecting the idea of it being true because there is a very big possibility what you just learned will change in a few years or even a year. It’s always expanding and improving on itself, there are no laws written in stone as people are not written in stone. Even if there are fundamentals psychology nails down, those too will change as people change. It’s a living breathing discipline, that’s part of why I so enjoy it.

            Much in the same way I see game development as a living breathing construct. It’s constantly changing and evolving as the people and games develop with it. There is no one way to make a ‘good game’ and something that works for one game may not entirely work for another. But the problem is people are now trying to quantify what makes a good game with metrics, sales numbers, and by pulling aspects that they think makes up another successful game into theirs. That’s why we’ve seen so many CoD clones over the past few years. One game magically got things down right (which I’m pretty sure even they didn’t even know how or why they got it right) and all of a sudden everyone thinks if they make a game similar to that one, they too will be successful. Not even taking into account market saturation and trying to compete with a superior product, that’s like making a frankenstein game. The moment you try to make your game similar to another you become directly comparable to that product (and often times it’s very much superior). It’s a recipe for failure.

            BF3 for instance was dangerously close to walking that line. It definitely left that CoD clone taste in a lot of peoples mouths, but managed to pull off some interesting aspects that made it different.

            I honestly think psychology or writing is more applicable to game design then programming is. Programming is more of the back end that gets everything done and if someone approaches game development without knowing anything about programming, it’s not going to come to fruition. But I’d say the majority of the times people approach game development from the programming aspect and are missing a lot of the heart and soul that make

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            up a good game. That’s why it’s really important if you’re a lead designer or developer to take in input from the rest of your team, especially the art department as they tend to be extremely creative. Their creativity is merely limited by the programmers ability to implement it.

            I’m not sure if I properly addressed what you’re talking about. I would actually approach this from a sociological or psychological perspective, especially cognitive development. If you talk to some of your psycho or sociology professors they would probably give you quite a bit of meaningful input. They tend to be very open minded when it comes to hypotheticals (at least in my experience).

            • KeillRandor
            • 6 years ago

            Well – everything is all part of the same big picture at the end of the day, and is all related to everything else – the problem is that such relationships are not recognised in their full and proper context at present, which is where our problems with language underpins such matters, because that’s part of what it helps us to do, and is why failing to understand such relationships within language itself is so detrimental to everything else.

            The ‘big picture’ is what we’re missing, to provide consistent context for everything else to exist – when groups of people are working on films and music, at least they know what they are, and so know what they need to be working on and why – games are not fully known and understood, and so they get pulled in too many different directions depending on each person’s subjective perspective – there’s no consistent foundation to build on, which is where our understanding of (the) language itself fails us.

            Talking about how to make good games is all well and good, but if no-one has a consistent understanding of what a game is, (especially in relation to puzzles, competitions and works of art, as at present), then of course you’re not going to wind up with consistent products that do the best job they can.

            No one struggles to design and make chairs, or tables etc., because we know and understand what they are – the function they are designed to fulfil – and also the relationship and differences between them. If we imagine games as chairs, puzzles as tables etc., then not only are we confusing their function with the materials they’re made out of, but we don’t know what function they’re defined by at all, and so we’re getting confused between chairs and tables and beds etc., and how they are related to each other, as and by furniture. Understanding how to best make things out of wood, doesn’t matter so much if you don’t fully understand and recognise the item of furniture you’re trying to make in the first place.

            Of course, the overall situation is more complicated than that, but it’s about the best analogy I can come up with.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            It appears like you’re trying to tie this heavily into linguistic and I suppose given your discipline that would be the correct direction, I don’t think that directly relates though.

            People can still come up with concepts regardless of the language they know. I don’t believe the brain operates exclusively on one specific language and then is shackled to that language. Rather we come up with thoughts and then convert them to whatever spoken language we choose. Thoughts themselves are rather universal and it’s entirely possible to come up with a concept that doesn’t have a specific word for it. That’s why it’s possible to explain to people with a different language that don’t have directly translatable words a concept and the meaning of a word.

            It almost seems more like you’re talking about language as if it’s the ‘borg collective’ where all information is syncronized and shared between points in the system. If the language is the same and we have words for everything, we can come up with specific concepts we otherwise couldn’t. Dissemination of information takes place normally and sometimes takes explaining, I don’t see anything wrong with that. I don’t think it prevents people from being able to conceptutualize.

            If you’re suggesting our current level of knowledge and sharing in society impacts our ability to brainstorm, I would say sure. I don’t remember the correct terminology for it, but brainstorming is very dependent on society as a whole. People are taught concepts and then they build off of it. In doing so people usually happen to stumble upon similar ideas in similar time frames and try to develop them. TV, electricity, self-powered vehicles are all good ones where more then one person was trying to invent the same thing in roughly the same time period because the structure was there in society to begin with.

            However, occasionally you can get someone who can build so far off of the structure or make their own that society isn’t even applicable, Einstein for instance is a good example of that. That’s where really good idea generation comes from.

            Maybe I’m not correctly understanding you though. Another way I can look at what you’re saying is games simply don’t have a place in society yet as the concept is rather new? I think they can still develop concepts once again without classifying it specifically as art, engineering marvel, literature… I would even say for instance if you’re writing a book that doesn’t actually play at all into what you’re writing. It doesn’t really matter what its classification is.

            I guess it seems more like you’re trying to define at the end of this. Because we haven’t completely defined what a game is we can’t fully develop them. I’m not sure I would believe that, once again sometimes concepts themselves are very abstract. A book for instance can be any number of completely random bits of information, yet we still see the overall construct as a book. The range and scope of something like that is as big as the human imagination. I believe games can be defined in a similar manner.

            This sounds like it has a lot to do with the psychological definition of perception and you’re specifically looking to define video games: [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception[/url<] If you were trying to define a 'good' game I think that may be a more futile endeavor as that will always be highly subjective.

            • KeillRandor
            • 6 years ago

            No – you’re not quite understanding the fundamentals of the problem.

            What we now call and label as A ‘game’ is something that has existed for (probably) almost as long as humanity has, regardless of how any language is used to describe and represent it.

            But we don’t know that, because we’re not recognising what it is the word game is being used to represent in the first place, which IS something that specific, that is as ‘old as the hills’.

            Which is why this is a matter of linguistics – (the study and teaching of language) – or, rather, a [i<]failure[/i<] of linguistics. But why are we not recognising what it represents? Two reasons: 1) The word game has not always represented such information, and so it's previous main definition, (even though it is now centuries out of date), (what we would now call and label as gambling), is still causing confusion for a lot of people, (though it doesn't help that there is an entire industry that gains from such confusion and adds propaganda to help keep it that way). Yes, one piece of information the word game represents remains, that is still linked to such a thing, but it is no longer it's 'main' definition. (Last I looked, basic games such as 'Snakes and Ladders' etc. didn't have to involve gambling.) 2) The main piece of information the word game represents, is not 'simple', and doesn't, therefore, belong to a 'simple' concept within the language. This has a direct link with our current (lack of) understanding of grammar, due to how it should describe the necessary relationships, that are not recognised to exist, currently. I could go into far greater detail, but I'm afraid you'll all have to wait - hopefully this has got you looking in the right direction? 😉

        • Mr. Eco
        • 6 years ago

        Haha, you were the first and only one to notice Bensam’s post was truncated.

          • Bensam123
          • 6 years ago

          One of the few to reach the bottom. 😉

      • tipoo
      • 6 years ago

      That…Was a really good essay. I read the whole thing, deserves more than just a +1!

      • Bensam123
      • 6 years ago

      Part of my finishing thoughts are in response to Auxy’s post up above if you’re interested.

      • jihadjoe
      • 6 years ago

      Wall of text crits for 49281648912 damage.
      An interesting approach — but fatal.

      • Spunjji
      • 6 years ago

      “SC2 has very methodical and almost ‘unfun’ game play… the epicness of the story is so completely different from the actual gameplay, it completely ruins the immersion when you get into missions.”

      This x1000. It’s a problem with a lot of RTS games, but SC2 has it worst because it specifically marries a 16-year-old game design with a 21st-century-game-budget storyline. Hell, the original StarCraft was bad enough on that front… at least the Command and Conquer series had the decency to make the plot as cartoonishly silly as the gameplay. 😉

      Another good counterpoint was Company of Heroes for the first 2-3 missions, where the strict limitations on your resources meant it felt like you really were guiding a group of lost soldiers on to victory. The gameplay fit the (basic) storyline perfectly. Then it went and blew it all as soon as it added unit-production buildings and settled into the “Tank got blown up? Never mind, build another one!” gameplay.

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        Exactly. While the plot and the rest of the game exceeds expectations by leaps and bounds, the gameplay reminds me of North Korea being stuck in the soviet era. It’s antiquated and out of touch with the rest of the world, locked in it’s own little bubble.

        Yeah, as far as RTT (real time tactics) goes I’d say CoH or DoW2 pretty much heads that up. It’s unfortunate that they don’t get a lot of PR. They definitely have a unique gameplay that would cater to the competitive scene. Yeah, the vehicle combat in CoH never really fit well IMO, they didn’t figure out how to mesh the two well enough so one didn’t completely obsolete the other (except for that rare harassment where a rocket launcher hits and one shots your tank out of no where).

          • Krogoth
          • 6 years ago

          The crux of the problem is that SC1 is a victim of its overwhelming success and later resurgence in eSport arena within South Korea. If Blizzard felt that they were risking too much if they wanted to change the basic formula of SC1.

          Warcraft 3 divided the Blizzard community. There’s the crowd who welcome its greater emphasis on tactics and micro-management and others who hate this and you get penalized for amassing a huge army (upkeep). I really like the upkeep part, because it was one of the few strategic elements in Warcraft 3.

          Blizzard wanted to avoid a similar mixed response with SC2 which is why it plays like BW 2.0 (remixing units and streamlining the UI). HOTS refines the UI even farther and makes it more forgiving to novices and scrubs.

    • Airmantharp
    • 6 years ago

    I think that traditional shooters have had boring gameplay for years, at least when it comes to single-player campaigns. If the game has a good story, like Half-Life, then the shooting sections are still largely the tedium in between, not the meat of the game.

    I think that is what got me interested in RPGs. I’m not a Magic or pen-and-paper acolyte, and I remember my parents vaguely shunning Dungeons and Dragons, but Doom was in, until let’s say Doom 3 started the decline. I never finished it or the Crysis games, and basically stopped looking at single-player shooters if they didn’t have something besides ‘shoot bad guys’ to add.

    As Cyril alludes with the mention of System Shock 2, shooters have to bring something else to table aside from ‘shooting’ make gameplay engaging, and I think shooters with light or heavy RPG elements have really satisfied this component. Take a corridor RPG shooter like the Mass Effect series or an open-world adventure RPG shooter like Fallout 3/NV and you start to get something useful!

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 6 years ago

    No love for Deus Ex I see. Sad but I understand all of your complaints. Every game has been boiled down to being very unoriginal. I mean look at dark souls, its claim is… your gonna die. Not, we have great gameplay or anything truly revolutionary. Just that the same flavor of game you’ve played before with higher default difficulty to it.

    • bodom81
    • 6 years ago

    More sales is the root of all disappointing games. Remove the challenge so more people will spend $$.

    • tootercomputer
    • 6 years ago

    I’m not sure I agree with Cyril in the sense of, let’s build a better FPS. It amazes me how good the graphics have become and how the majority of games that utilize those graphics are still the same old FPS. There are some exceptions, including some racing games, but still the majority of the high-end games are FPS. IMHO, incredibly boring.

    I beg the game makers to get off their butts, take the graphics engine of say Crysis 3, and create something other than a FPS. I mean, c’mon, let’s think outside the box a little.

    • Village
    • 6 years ago

    I agree, I was noticing this while playing the new Tomb Raider. Here I am, newly rebooted heroine to be, that should be exploring. Instead it has so far been a linear slug fest through the so far unexplained and innumerable bad guys with a penchant for killing.

    It’s a competent game, arguable good but boring and been done before. After 30 minutes or so I find myself looking for the next campfire to set it down. It’s stupid that I have to go to each corpse and loot it just to fight the next battle. Having to find crates and burn nets to drop them is stupid. I’m enjoying the game over all, but it’s not what I call fun. Just like I enjoy some heavy movies but don’t consider them fun.

    Now Ratchet and Clank, Tools of Destruction on PS3. That was just plain fun to play.

    • swaaye
    • 6 years ago

    Yeah I agree that the Bioshock combat is and always has been weak. I played through these games for the story.

    System Shock 2 is the same way frankly. It actually has extra problems. The old school RPG stats are interesting but not well thought out IMO. Guns breaking after a few shots? Oh please. Enemies respawn around corners. The map design degenerates into nonsense later in the game. I played this game through just before Bioshock 1 came out. Incredible but really flawed.

    Nobody talks about System Shock 1 much though. That one is the ground breaker but it is even more flawed (and fruity).

    • Chrispy_
    • 6 years ago

    [quote<]Maybe game studios are so intent on catering to brain-dead 14-year-olds with Xbox 360s that they've lost sight of what makes games fun.[/quote<] I thought I was just getting old, but I see I am not alone! I intend to play through SS2 again now that it's on GoG and I'm hoping it's better now that I though it was back in the day. I will gladly take gameplay over graphics any day of the week and I guess this is why Super Meat Boy was so successful, even when it looks like it should be running on an Amiga.

    • Jon
    • 6 years ago

    Nice read Cyril, I too come from the System Shock 2 generation and clamor for a game that brings back the feeling that System Shock 2 wrought on my psyche. Every now and again a game comes out with some elements that show an improvement over the way some SS2 gameplay mechanic is employed but it’s so few and far between that it’s hardly worth praising.

    I wasn’t blown away by the dated UE3 engine graphics in Infinite and felt that each level was simply a clutter of ‘stuff’ the developer had thrown together, eventually combining enough ‘stuff’ that each level looked reasonably good. But it was too much ‘stuff’ and left me dazed and confused half the time.

    • willyolio
    • 6 years ago

    i’ve always thought of something like that. an assassination game, but more like the total opposite of the Hitman series. it should play more like an exploration and puzzle-solving game, with only 10 bosses or so as the only people you ever attack or kill. the rest of it is investigating possible routes to get to your target – poison in a restaurant, smothering them in bed, car bomb, sniper rifle, etc.

    roughly a more shootery version of Shadow of the Colossus.

    • clone
    • 6 years ago

    you may be asking for an impossible balance, you want frenetic gameplay but at a pace as determined by you….. this will always be a compromise, to much one way and it gets tedious and boring, too much another and it becomes homogenous, too much another and it becomes a pain in the ass…. such are the pitfalls of scripting,

    examples of each:

    the latter Quake titles were the ultimate in blandness.
    the latter Tomb Raiders weren’t fun but instead a pain in the ass.
    Splinter Cell & theif games were tedious.

    don’t get me wrong all of the above have their fans but……. they were what they were.

    the only game developer I know of that has really focused on this is Valve and would suggest you replay the expansions to Half Life 2 with the commentary bubbles enabled that explained why they did things they chose to do.

    was a very nice thing for Gabe Newell to include.

    • DPete27
    • 6 years ago

    Sounds like Cyril should play Dishonored.

      • Cyril
      • 6 years ago

      [url=https://techreport.com/blog/23756/dishonored-a-nice-change-of-pace<]Hi there.[/url<]

        • DPete27
        • 6 years ago

        Sorry Cyril. I remembered the article, just couldn’t remember who wrote it.

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      The whole premise of that game is jarringly stupid. I found I couldn’t get immersed at all.

        • kamikaziechameleon
        • 6 years ago

        Me either, it was too out there. I loved the art design, hated the game engine… yeah.

        • cynan
        • 6 years ago

        Not saying I disagree with you, but this is exactly why games don’t take more creative risks and end up being repetitive. (And related to why every major game and movie studio has at least one or more tried and tested IP franchises to fall back on – there’s never been so many sequels). Why risk alienating people, when you can just push a recycled lowest common denominator that everyone “gets”? Regardless of whether you appreciate the plot or premise of Dishonored, you still have to appreciate the attempt at originality.

          • Meadows
          • 6 years ago

          The intro level in Dishonored was a rushed, scriptless mishmash of overused cliches. It’s hard to get immersed after such an intro sequence.

          I [b<]do[/b<] appreciate quality games, and I [b<]don't[/b<] long for the twentieth CoD. It's not that I didn't "get" the game. I got it all right. But when the plot starts taking the shape of a 12-year-old's story fiction homework assignment right from the outset, you're going to have a hard time convincing me to keep a straight face.

            • law99
            • 6 years ago

            I haven’t played many games, or seen many films, recently that don’t have a story that couldn’t be envisaged by a 12 year old. And this is one of the things I think, growing older, that won’t change . The only games and films that challenge this seem to be deeply artistic or independent type purist platform games, with well poised music in the background. And those games rarely have a plot or even a point. (Think of that flower game on the PS3 for instance)

            Or GTA 4 comes out and it is a deeply adult game with an ending I can only liken to watching a film where the bad guy wins… and then everyone complains that it wasn’t fun enough and that the rampages are gone. I thought the bitter sweet finish was very good and just driving around like a normal person entertained me for a while.

            I know where you are coming from though, Dishonored made little attempt to untie itself from that era of British history that does seem silly and romantic. Then it combined it with a purely fantastical element. That probably drove more people away than reviews I saw gave credit to.

            But throughout the game there were many interesting moments. There were many ways to tackle problems. There were actions that changed the outcomes and fates of people. Even if they were the usual “don’t kill anyone” type scenarios (Which I’m fond of by the way) or “save this person and get alt path/item”. There were also plenty of gotchas that would require you to play differently and many of these could be avoided by some quick thinking or just luck.I haven’t played many games, or seen many films, recently that don’t have a story that couldn’t be envisaged by a 12 year old. And this is one of the things I think, growing older, that won’t change . The only games and films that challenge this seem to be deeply artistic or independent type purist platform games, with well poised music in the background. And those games rarely have a plot or even a point. (Think of that flower game on the PS3 for instance)

            Or GTA 4 comes out and it is a deeply adult game with an ending I can only liken to watching a film where the bad guy wins… and then everyone complains that it wasn’t fun enough and that the rampages are gone. I thought the bitter sweet finish was very good and just driving around like a normal person entertained me for a while.

            I know where you are coming from though, Dishonored made little attempt to untie itself from that era of British history that does seem silly and romantic. Then it combined it with a purely fantastical element. That probably drove more people away than reviews I saw gave credit to.

            But throughout the game there were many interesting moments. There were many ways to tackle problems. There were actions that changed the outcomes and fates of people. Even if they were the usual “don’t kill anyone” type scenarios (Which I’m fond of by the way) or “save this person and get alt path/item”. There were also plenty of gotchas that would require you to play differently and many of these could be avoided by some quick thinking or just luck.

            Can’t remember the first level… so can’t comment. I’ll replay soon. But at that point you were relatively normal, so it would have been a normal-ish stealth or gunning type affair.

    • cphite
    • 6 years ago

    One of my favorite games ever was the original Deus Ex. The graphics aren’t great even for when the game came out, and the gameplay itself isn’t the best – there is some weirdness when it comes to jumping, and the enemy combat AI consists mainly of them running back and forth while shooting you…

    But the game offered some really cool and diverse options in terms of how you could play. You could go in shooting, or you could strike from the shadows… or you could avoid killing. You could focus on one thing – hacking, locks, sniping, etc – or you could be a jack of all trades.

    For me, a big part of the fun was replaying and finding out what other ways I could have done things.

      • ChronoReverse
      • 6 years ago

      Deus Ex: Human Revolution was pretty good about that too.

    • lilbuddhaman
    • 6 years ago

    My problem was that most of the combat sections in the first half (i think, almost finished Fink Manufacturing area) were too short. 30 minutes of scenery, 5 minutes of fighting in said scenery. 30min of scenery (and looting), 5 minutes of fighting.

    I would have liked more waves of enemies, or going through whole areas full of enemies, instead of just completely empty, seemingly cleared by someone else, areas.

    I’m playing on hard and have died quite a few times, and every time I do I restart from checkpoint, as the Liz-rez is just too EZ-mode for me. Sometimes this is annoying though because it pushes you to *before* a series of looting/scenery. The two weapon limit is also just frustrating. I want to hold machine gun + RPG + one other.

    Aside from that, damn the imagery from this game is just perfect, the audio is constantly reminding me of middle/high school american history

      • Andrew Lauritzen
      • 6 years ago

      Restarting from a checkpoint/save actually makes it easier in the long run because you don’t lose money, etc.

    • sweatshopking
    • 6 years ago

    I fully agree. and why the heck am i STILL picking up audio recorders strewn around? why am i still looting EVERYTHING in site? isn’t there a better way to do this? it’s certainly not fun. I thought the story was ok. decent enough, for a video game. the combat was mediocre, the graphics had great art direction, but otherwise weren’t amazing. Great use of fog and lighting though.

    I don’t get the point of making elizabeth look like a 12 year old girl and then giving her tits and trying to make grown men develop an attraction. it’s weird. I keep seeing men on twitter talking about how they “had feelings” or “attachment” for a (fictional) character that looks like an underage child. I found this to be quite an issue for me. I personally don’t develop attachments to fictional characters (my wife says it’s because i lack empathy, i think it’s just because they’re not real), but seeing grown men discussing this was gross

    IMO, the best shooter to come out in a long time is far cry 3, especially on the new master level of difficulty. it’s hard, interesting, and diverse. the server situation on PC sucks, but the gameplay is solid, and the graphics are great. campaign story isn’t as good as bioshock, but i’d rather sneak up behind some guys, or drop in from a hang glider, or make my own levels to run through than run through the same combat all the time. if any of you guys play far cry 3 on pc, let me know, i’d love a co-op partner, as i haven’t tried it yet.

      • tipoo
      • 6 years ago

      Caring for a character doesn’t have to mean in a sexual way. I think your wife was right.

      Infinite was one of the few games where the female character wasn’t oversexualized, yet people still find something to complain about, because if she doesn’t have a big booty she looks 12? She was around 17 in the game, and I thought she looked it.

        • sweatshopking
        • 6 years ago

        17 is still underage. There are plenty of men who aren’t thinking about her in a friendly way, its not me, I’m just responding to tweets from other guys.. I’m not saying that’s all there is, but I don’t think the game sets up a she’s a child you’re protecting. They spend time trying to show she is a woman, and then make her look like a kid. Its not the lack of big booty, she has decent sized chest, its the larger than adult eyes, (eyes take up a smaller percentage of the face as you grow, its why babies are cute) small childish frame, except her chest, and clothes. I don’t think it was a good design.

          • tipoo
          • 6 years ago

          They talked about deliberately making her eyes larger so you could see her expressions from further away. I think that was a good move, too. If you think about other co-heroes in games, say Alyx, whenever they have an emotional scene they’re right up close to you. With Infinite the range was extended.

          Small childish frame…I dunno. People don’t want to protect fat people 😛

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            there might be some validity to their decisions, however, it still doesn’t make the internet any less disgusting.

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 6 years ago

            while I mostly agree, there is a huge differentiation between say, a 12 year old versus a 17 year old. “A little creepy”, yes but not really if it’s a 16-20 year old playing the game, and certainly not “disgusting”. Further, this is a DIGITAL girl, with an extremely developed intellect, and also developed physically. Her small frame and innocent face are the only features that imply “girl” opposed to “woman”.

            But ya know I’m just playing devil’s advocate here?

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            A 50 year old and a 17 year old is pretty creepy, but you have a point.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 6 years ago

            As your grandpa and a dirty old man, I fully approve of a 50 year-old and an 18 year-old :p

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            you would

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 6 years ago

            the seed is strong?

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            look how i turned out! THE SEED IS POWERFUL.

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 6 years ago

            I mean the box art is of a grown women that looks exactly like her so there is that to support the theory she wasn’t 12.

      • Jon
      • 6 years ago

      I’d like to try FC3 in co-op, but I have yet to even get into the SP campaign. I would be so much a noob. Hit me up tho.

        • sweatshopking
        • 6 years ago

        Pm me your uplay info. I’m sweatshopking on there

      • slowriot
      • 6 years ago

      Our genetics push us to breed at an age much younger than we do in modern society. I haven’t played Bioshock Infinite but I got the impression the Elizabeth character is around 16. It wasn’t that long ago a woman that age would be starting a family.

        • tipoo
        • 6 years ago

        There were charts in her chamber that showed her to be at least 17, as they graphed her power levels by age.

        • sweatshopking
        • 6 years ago

        Sure, and we used to sleep with our sisters. That has nothing to do with modern morality. While its true that used to be the age of marriage, and in many places still is, its not healthy, and there is plenty of research to back it up

          • bthylafh
          • 6 years ago

          “We”? How long ago did your ancestors stop practicing incest, ssk?

          😛

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            what day is it?

            • tipoo
            • 6 years ago

            Shouldn’t you be asking which hour?

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            i think we’re into days now

          • slowriot
          • 6 years ago

          I don’t know of many cases of unchecked incest and considering there’s a genetically built-in reason not too… I think you’re making that up. “Modern morality” is a useless term, you can’t define it, we can’t live by it. It certainly has no relation to what’s “good” or “bad” because I see people taking actions I would consider down right evil but are socially acceptable every day. Your use of “healthy” is also a complete joke.

          So no, you don’t have any argument here other than you feel icky about someone being attracted to a 16-17 year old virtual girl. Get over it. It’s completely natural and there’s zero harm being done.

            • peartart
            • 6 years ago

            yeah, being attracted to virtual people is totally natural. It happened all the time in the past million years of human evolution.

            More seriously, the harm is that it is part of a larger culture that normalizes sexism/rape/male entitlement.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            +1!!!!!!

            • brute
            • 6 years ago

            YEAH! we should totally criminalize rape! how is it still legal! and sex discrimination! how about we make that illegal too?

            the government should look into only why WOMEN get pregnant. probably the patriarchy’s fault!

            • peartart
            • 6 years ago

            🙁

            • brute
            • 6 years ago

            😉

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            brute is just teasing, he can only post jokes.

            • tipoo
            • 6 years ago

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            making what up? you brought up biology and ALL KINDS OF CREATURES SLEEP WITH THEIR SIBLINGS. IN FACT, ALMOST ANY MAMMAL ON THE PLANET WILL. that’s biology. because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so. the only thing that stops it is education, the exact same thing that stops the undesirable practice of sex with minors.

            Modern morality? What’s good or bad? You can bring it up with my MIT professor in my 14.73x The Challenges of Global Poverty economics course. there have been days spent discussing the issues with underage sexual relationships and the massive negative problems it brings. it’s taught by Profs. Duflo and Banerjee, and you can discuss it with them. i’m a little more likely to take their position then yours that it is negative. In fact, one of the quickest ways to economic growth and the reduction of crime is the protection of girls for this exact reason. it IS WRONG.

            Sure, morality is subjective, but science isn’t. because you don’t like other stuff people do (and i’m sure justifiably) that doesn’t mean this is ok. it means they’re being jerks too.

            my use of healthy is not a joke. it’s possible to see which societies are functioning and which aren’t. there are a variety of different metrics, but the rights of women and girls is a relatively easy one to measure.

            So no, my argument is correct, sourced, and educated. Because something happens in biology doesn’t make it ideal, and the practice of being attracted to minors while an adult (no issues with a 17 year old being attracted to a 17 year old, that’s normal) is dysfunctional, unhealthy, and damaging to society.

            • CaptTomato
            • 6 years ago

            SHE’S 19 CHUMP!!!

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            THEN GET ON HER, GRANDPA!!!!

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            There are biological repercussions to conceiving children with your sibling. If it were rampant the species would quickly suffer. That is a natural law. Nature will punish the species in time. Our “morality” is informed by this natural punishment and why I ask for proof that there used to be a way higher occurrence of incest. Ideally such occurrences that are in recent history, because “adult” men (when does someone become an adult? Are we really going to use cut offs like 18 years which we know are poor indicators?) expressing attraction to females in the 16-17 age range publicly was common not even 40 years ago and yet I don’t think this rampant incest issue was.

            I don’t believe you’re characterizing your professors positions correctly. I would hazard they’re far more cautious about the absolutes you’re expressing or the cut off you’re using. I specifically have issues with statements like “17 year old being attracted to a 17 year old” being fine. So that’s okay but you’d have an issue with a 22 year old being attracted to a 17 year old? Because then it’s okay again the day the 17 year old become 18? You know it’s not nearly that clear but that’s how you are seemingly insisting people should correct their thoughts (and are you going to deny the serious mental health issues that forcing such conceptions of morality on people can have?). You’re telling people to fight feelings originating in their instincts, that has negative repercussions.

            I’d also point to our own society (I’m from the US) which does have severe penalties in place against those sexual relations is not functioning at all. In fact, how in the heck do you or your professors even propose to analyze other societies are working when considering our own evil is doing such immense destruction to those societies. You can’t at all. So stop pretending you or your professors can. Part of “science” is realizing you can come to initially wrong answers.

            • NeelyCam
            • 6 years ago

            Interesting arguments.

            Imagine two countries – let’s call them Hammerfell and Morrowind. Hammerfell has the age of consent set to 18yo, Morrowind has it at 16yo.

            1) Is it OK for an adult from Hammerfell (consent age: 18) have sex with a 17yo from Morrowind (consent age: 16) in a) Hammerfell, and b) Morrowind?

            2) Is it OK for an adult from Morrowind (consent age: 16) have sex with a 17yo from Hammerfell (consent age: 18) in a) Hammerfell, and b) Morrowind?

            In the same line of thinking, is it OK for an American to smoke pot in Amsterdam? Is it OK for a Dutch to smoke pot in America? We could extend this to even prostitution which is both legal and illegal in the USA, depending on the place.

            What defines the morality? Who’s right? Who’s wrong?

            • tipoo
            • 6 years ago

            Amsterdam is right, of course.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            imo what’s right doesn’t matter based on location. I can understand somebody making a poor decision based upon a lack of education, but that doesn’t make it right. We all only have limited knowledge and do our best, but certainly EVERY situation has a BEST action, and while we might follow the one that we believe is right, that doesn’t mean it is, just that we have some excuse for our actions.

            • MadManOriginal
            • 6 years ago

            What’s ‘right’ does matter based on location since you seem to take a stance on legal definitions about a person being ‘of age’…that definition can vary by location.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            I’m not taking a stand based upon legal definitions, i’ve already said i didn’t necessarily think that 18 was a good number. I’ve said that research suggests large age gaps and young pregnancy have a negative effect on society. 50 and 19 is creepy, though totally legal. locations give context, but they don’t necessarily make something the “correct” action

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            First off, i agree that incest was a long time ago, but you were talking biology, which has changed little over the past 50 thousand years. Incest also has a long history in our culture, with freud talking much about the [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex[/url<] which was as far as he could tell a biological drive to mount your parents. How that translated into day to day love making would vary (European royalty?). as for the species suffering, have you met rabbits? or rats? or dogs? or cats? they hump family ALL THE TIME. it's less of an issue than many people think. Sex with your first cousin has the same risks as a mother conceiving close to 40 years of age. species survive, and thrive this all the time. The professors take the position that younger women who are with older men are less likely to complete their educations, have less economic opportunity, less stable elderly life, and poorer health in the long term. These are all easily quantifiable numbers, and you can pretend you can't measure them, but you can measure them all. you simple compare the ages and the living standards of the people in different relationships. it's been done, and it's a well known issue. I am stunned (though really, it's the internet, so of course somebody would argue it!) that you're taking the position you're are. I don't believe i was talking in absolutes, and the men i was referring to aren't 22. they're 45-55. Clearly, some cutoff has to exist, or we have no standards at all. whether you think it's 18 or not is a separate discussion. it's not about a magic 18 day, but it's about a general maturing of people in a society. you can't take an individual and try to say "ha! they can do it!". I myself was married at 18, and am coming up on my 10 year anniversary. But what you can do is look at societies, birth rates, death rates, education levels across societies and see how they trend. And that's what my professors are discussing. Large gaps in couples have a negative affect on society, as well as young pregnancy (which i assume you'll reply something about birth control, cause you don't want a baby with a fictional character). It's pretty clear research, and if you're interested, you're welcome to take the course. Also, how the system functions in the USA has nothing to do with anything. I don't think it's doing a great job of stopping murders, so wtf. i'll join in! we're not controlling it to my satisfaction so i'll do it too! that position misses everything. the only way to fix these issues is to educate people as mature, responsible adults, that put the best interests of others before their own carnal desires (which can be hard, but is necessary).

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 6 years ago

            Not interested in taking the course but interested in articles and numbers supporting the hypothesis. Particularly in how those downsides occur. It seems unlikely that the only factors involved is age of the participants.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]The professors take the position that younger women who are with older men are less likely to complete their educations, have less economic opportunity, less stable elderly life, and poorer health in the long term. These are all easily quantifiable numbers, and you can pretend you can't measure them, but you can measure them all. you simple compare the ages and the living standards of the people in different relationships. it's been done, and it's a well known issue. I am stunned (though really, it's the internet, so of course somebody would argue it!) that you're taking the position you're are.[/quote<] Factors such as length of lifetime, economic "value" or "opportunity", and health can be measured. I am not disputing that at all (and I'm confused why you would think I am). What I am disputing is that those factors alone can be used to determine a person's quality of life or "standard of living". Variables which are impossible to separate from the person being measured that can not be measured, such as culture, have far too great of an impact. In US society a college education has a lot of value. I'm certain it is a factor in the standard of life equation. Those with less education have "worse" lives it would seem according to the equation. However, removed from this culture much of the "value" in the college education is lost. Without the structure of our society a business degree is worthless. So, only in our society is education actually valuable. Nature does not punish us for not having a college degree, society/culture does. This extends to other parts of the equation too like length of life. Living to 76 years of age isn't inherently more valuable than living to only 54 or even 32. It is only within the frame of a culture's value system can it be quantified and that system can only be used within that culture. Even then when trying to apply that value system you run into all kinds of issues. Is it really worth living to 76 instead of 45 if I have to work near every day of my life for some entity that treats me terribly? I'm not so sure and that's a reality that faces many people in our society every day. [quote<]I don't believe i was talking in absolutes, and the men i was referring to aren't 22. they're 45-55. Clearly, some cutoff has to exist, or we have no standards at all. whether you think it's 18 or not is a separate discussion. it's not about a magic 18 day, but it's about a general maturing of people in a society. you can't take an individual and try to say "ha! they can do it!". I myself was married at 18, and am coming up on my 10 year anniversary. But what you can do is look at societies, birth rates, death rates, education levels across societies and see how they trend. And that's what my professors are discussing. Large gaps in couples have a negative affect on society, as well as young pregnancy (which i assume you'll reply something about birth control, cause you don't want a baby with a fictional character). It's pretty clear research, and if you're interested, you're welcome to take the course.[/quote<] Why must a cut off exist? Even more importantly, why should such a cut off be enforced by law? We can't exactly define this cut off. We can't determine when the exact moment it would be "okay." There is no magic day, that's my entire point! Yet you and others want to create this magical day, when it suddenly become okay, or create this magical gap even where it is okay. All the while trying to paint your creation as helping society, improving it. Neglecting that you're repressing thoughts that you can't prove are inherently bad. To me this type of thinking is dangerously like many religions. There is a good, there is a bad and if you have thoughts that are bad you're a bad person. You might even go to prison because you're a 22 year old male who formed a consensual relationship with a 16 year old girl. You're both dumb, probably a similar level of maturity but now your life has been absolutely destroyed because someone said what you did was bad and had a nice quantified level of punishment for you. I wonder if the people of the Trobriand Islands are deeply unhappy.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            Couple things:
            1. please list the groups of people or cultures which you think would like to have trouble eating, receive poor education, die young, or those that do not die young, have tumultuous elder years. it’s all well and good to say “but some cultures!!!!” or “but those islanders!!!!”, but the reality is that the VAST majority of people in the world want access to healthcare, education, and long life. please, feel free to lead by example and have no more health care, shred your degrees, and start getting all kinds of diseases that will end your life shortly. HIV without treatment is a popular one among the worlds poor. Maybe you’ve never watched a poor person die from HIV with no care, like i have in africa. It’s not pretty. You think a university degree has no bearing on quality of life in africa? EVERY african i met while living there wanted education and healthcare more than anything else. You bet your ass the global poor want those things i listed. it’s an arrogant and condescending position to say “yes, i know i want it, but those people, they simply don’t see the value in long life, health, and education. their culture doesn’t see the point”. While i can appreciate, and acknowledge that there are SOME exceptions, the vast majority of people of india, africa, and south america all want to be educated, healthy, and live long fruitful lives. Hence india training so many university students, africa, focusing on education and healthcare, south america working for economic growth so it can provide all the things i listed.

            2. some form of cutoff should exist (i’m not suggesting the current one is necessarily good, merely talking abstracts) to protect those people who are vulnerable. the point is not to have a “magical day”, the point is to say “at this stage everyone should be responsible to make their own decisions”. What if i fancy an 11 year old and she, being 11 and having no idea what a sexual relationship entails, is cool with it? i’m almost 30, would you be cool with that? Those laws came about because EXACTLY that situation was occurring (and still does in many places, to the detriment of the child) There are problems with having a cutoff date, such as one you listed with two mature people, but at this point, i think they pros out weight the cons. If you have a better idea on how we can make sure that these children are protected, i’m all ears and would welcome the ideas.

            3. edit: i also want to say that a college degree teaches things like critical thinking, focus, etc. those are all advantageous in nature. You have somewhat of a point that it is subject to culture, but last I checked, the VAST majority of human beings are involved in some kind of culture ( not many mountain men remain) and the VAST majority of these have some kind of appreciation for higher education. I’m not sure what your point about nature all the time is. It has nothing to do with anything, since we are not islands. If you lived entirely alone, untouched by mankind, you might have something, but even children can learn from educated parents. In tribal societies much teaching still goes on, and respect for education and knowledge still exist, they just might be different than ours. that doesn’t mean that education has no value.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            If you’re going to continue putting words in my mouth then there’s no reason to have a further discussion.

            You’re missing the larger point. I have zero doubt groups of people in Africa desire the education that they are told exists elsewhere. But if you were to take away the absolute devastation caused by groups of white men on that continent and the picture flips. Maybe diseases are not as rampant. Maybe certain religious groups are no longer doing as much damage every single day, at least, as you are giving aid. I often wonder if we just left those people to solve the issues on their own what would happen. It will never happen though, most humans are deeply infected with a disease that leads them to believe they have the answers to everyone else’s problem.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            the larger point? i’m not missing the larger point. you’re pretending you live in a dream world. “but what if nothing bad ever happened and the world didn’t look like it does?” you claimed that health care, education, etc. had no bearing on quality of life. i said which groups do you think that’s true for, and you said i was putting words in your mouth. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, i’m suggesting that your logic isn’t realistic, nor functionally useful. you give examples of societies that either a. don’t exist or b. are so small as to have a negligible effect on global society and then say we should base all of our behavior upon that. i’m just trying to understand what you’re saying and discuss it.

            Now this is about colonialism? [url<]http://tinyurl.com/8gmv3y4[/url<] if only it was as simple as "groups of white men", rather than a convoluted mess that has blame on every front. I used to think it was cut and dry too, but then i learned it's no where near that simple. not that it has [i<] anything [/i<] to do with our discussion. The education doesn't "exist elsewhere", africa has universities, you know. IN FACT some of the best in the world. the first heart transplant was done in cape town [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_transplantation[/url<] and some of the oldest universities (thousand of years old) are in northern africa. Africa is not a world vision commercial. as for leaving them to solve issues on their own, who do you think should be left alone by who? you think the rest of the world should just not talk to entire continents? Need malaria meds? nope, we're not talking to you. need help with training your professors? nope, we're not talking to you. that's simply impossible, counter productive, and dangerous. I must be misunderstanding what you're saying, because i don't see how what you've said makes any sense.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            “you claimed that health care, education, etc. had no bearing on quality of life.”

            Again, you keep putting words in my mouth, that is just one example of numerous in your post. That’s not at all what I said. Those factors have a bearing on the quality of life in a specific culture. Here where I live, yes they are major factors in “quality of life.” However, they are not necessarily factors in other current cultures, cultures that once existed, or cultures that could exist in the future.

            You’re missing the key underlying point and you’ve now repeatedly misrepresented my argument. There’s no reason for me to continue.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            Maybe I’m confused? Saying some cultures dont factor those things is unclear! Which cultures? Name some for me so I can understand what you mean! As it stands, to me, I’m understanding you to be saying that for some cultures those things dont matter. Am I mistaken? And if that’s what you’re saying, can you provide examples?

            • Cyril
            • 6 years ago

            Okay, take it to R&P, guys. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand anymore.

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 6 years ago

      Have you never read a book or watched a film and felt the tragedy of the characters in those mediums. Was Schindler’s list business as usual for you?

      SPOILER:

      I don’t care about the characters gender in a game, when ghost got it in COD I flipped out, when Cortana dies in halo 4 I was crushed, when I killed my father in bioshock, I GOT F’D UP! I’m sorry but if you can’t invest in a narrative to the point of caring about the human element it isn’t a reflection of the medium but of your own sad reality. Tragedy is tragedy, true story or fantasy human drama done right will always feel real no matter the medium or the gender.

        • sweatshopking
        • 6 years ago

        I can appreciate the tragedy of the real people in schindlers list. I can connect with that aspect, but I dont care for fictional characters. I’m not going to be sad when obi gets the saber. Video games in particular, I find they have the worst characters of any medium, and I’ve never felt any care for a video game character. I LIKE them, Mario is cool. I enjoy the plot of some games, but I dont care for the emotional state of the characters. They’re not real.

      • oldog
      • 6 years ago

      I kept thinking she was a dead ringer for Belle from the Disney cartoon “Beauty and The Beast”.

        • Meadows
        • 6 years ago

        [url<]http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/03/29[/url<]

          • oldog
          • 6 years ago

          Well played!

    • erwendigo
    • 6 years ago

    Cyril:

    “Things weren’t always this way. I have very fond memories of System Shock 2, BioShock Infinite’s spiritual pre-predecessor. I remember desperately scrounging for ammo, cowering in fear from even lone mutants, since I knew a fight might leave me badly wounded—and the noise might attract other creatures. I recall sneaking past enemies and reprogramming turrets to dispatch them so that I wouldn’t lose precious health or bullets in combat. I can still recall the satisfaction I felt when, later in the game, I finally had enough upgrades to gun down monsters in one shot.

    In System Shock 2, each enemy encounter was an event: memorable, frightening, dangerous, and sometimes exhilarating. Getting lost in the corridors of the Von Braun was part of the game, and it made the experience all the more immersive. There was a real sense that you, the player, had to use your own cunning and skill and sense of orientation to survive.”

    Maybe Cyril played the game in easy-normal difficulty, because Bioshock infinite requires all of the list of characteristics that Cyril said about Systemshok if you played it with a serious difficulty mode (at least hard, best with 1999 mode).

    You haven´t enough ammo, you can´t go like a rambo against a group of normal enemies, you must plan ahead the attack and tactics, you must run away if the situation is worse or clearly an unexepected scenarie if you want to survive. And you must aim with precision for the best result, and you must combine the “vigors” with the standards weapons wisely.

    Cyril, be a man and play the game like one, ” The Way It’s Meant To Be Played”, don´t be a mediocre player with easy/normal selection for a “play”.

      • sweatshopking
      • 6 years ago

      I beat it on hard, and while i died a few times, really only with handymen or in the memorial garden, I wouldn’t say it was hard. i haven’t tried it on 1999 mode, though. I rarely ever used vigors, (sometimes the upgraded lightening which stuns everyone for enough time to kill 4-5 of them with head shots) mostly just sniper rifle and hand cannon with the critical boosting clothes. IDK, i never found it difficult. Part of the problem is that the game doesn’t really leave room for experimentation. the levels are corridors, and there is cover. you hide behind cover and shoot. there’s no stealth, no other way to approach the fights. it’s not THAT much different than COD.

        • erwendigo
        • 6 years ago

        Well, if you don´t try the 1999 mode then you can´t talk properly about the difficulty of this game. It´s the “best” mode of the game, and yes, it´s a “corridor” game, but in the same direction of a Doom (1 and 2, not the 3 iteration, the last one is a strict corridor game like a CoD) or a Quake. You don´t walk in one unique direction, you can select 2-3 paths in some maps, change the order, explore (or not). Like a “Half Life”.

        Itsn´t a good example of the “atrophy” of the last FPS, if you want a example, any CoD or MoH makes a better choice. This game (Bioshock) is a game thar looks and feels like many FPS of the beginning of the 00-10. In these games you can´t make a LOT of option/paths/tactics, but you have the illusion of that your choice had weight in the game.

        The action of bioshock Infinite is better than the previous games of the saga, it´s a more tactical game.

        Test the 1999 mode and enjoy a better experience.

        If you want a better experience based in freedom and tactics, try a STALKER game, but these games aren´t at all the “retro-experience” of the games that Cyril mentioned (olders and simpler games than STALKER).

          • sweatshopking
          • 6 years ago

          couple things,
          1. i can’t think of a single time in that game you can really “select 2-3 paths” sometimes you might go one way around a statue vs another, but they all lead to the same scripted battle locations. So imo, that doesn’t count.
          2. i think half life 1 was good for its day, but half life 2 was mediocre. you’re not going to change my mind with that point 🙂
          3.i don’t believe there was a golden age of shooters. I think we’re generally improving upon a game, and if you’re looking for a twitch shooter, they exist in great number, nexuiz, one of the 5000000 quake 3 games for example, if you want a corridor game, you have cod or bioshock. If you want a free roaming rpg/shooter you have fallout/far cry/etc.

          However, i do appreciate a difficult game, as long as there is a point to it. I beat bioshock, on hard, and tbh, i’ll probably not play it on 1999. Why? because i don’t think i’d gain anything from it. I didn’t enjoy the gameplay enough to go through it all again. Far cry 3, fallout 3, those are much more varied and open, and as such, i’ll replay them a number of times. Far cry 3 in particular. i’ve made a bunch of maps, and enjoy messing around in them. something i don’t really enjoy doing in the heavily story driven bioshock.

          I’m not saying bioshock is a bad game, it isn’t. It’s just that for ME it has less replayablilty and the reason to play wasn’t that i was enjoying the game, i just wanted to see the ending. Which is a perfectly fine thing for the game to do. it’ll just not get 100 hours into it over the next 3 years.

            • erwendigo
            • 6 years ago

            Well, about your points:

            1.- Yes, in the game you can really select 2-3 paths, but only in the order of exploration. You have a example of this in “Downtown Emporia” map. I didn´t say that this games isn´t a heavy scripted game, I said that this game have a superior grade of freedom against CoDs and other games.

            2.- Half Life 2 is a better game than HL1 if you look at the narrative, gameplay, etc. I´m not going to change your mind, but I reafirm that idea.

            3.- I don´t think that there was a strictly “golden age of shooters”. It´s more about “longed times” that about the crude reality.

            On the other hand, games like Fallout or Far Cry (all of these are games that I´have enjoyed) don´t represent a better challenge that the Bioshock´s combats. All of these games use a similar IA/scripts systems for this task, and in the Bioshock´s case, its a better implementation.

            I repeat that I enjoyed these games, but for other reasons that Bioshock, the combat in Bioshock is satisfactory because its combination of use of weapons with vigors, and some survival tactics (use of cover, hacking of machines, flash/britzkrieg attacks, etc). It´s a “rail game”, but it´s a very different one if you look a “typical and boring modern warfare game” like CoD.

            The main difference is in the abuse of script secuences in CoDs for ALL the action, including the combat in all its aspects. The use of one NPC as “forced guide”, the obligation to face the battle of a single mode, makes the experience of gameplay very poor.

            Bioshock is different in these points, so it´s very unfair that Cyril uses this game to attack the modern FPS and especially because of the difficulty is much higher than he says (and I suspect that it is because his selection of difficulty).

            My point is more about the cyril´s criticism that about your criticism, very much reasonable.

      • sweatshopking
      • 6 years ago

      DOUBLE POST MEANS I’M DOUBLE LUCKY! I HAVE TO TELL MY WIFE!

    • peartart
    • 6 years ago

    System Shock 2 was great.

    The ammo thing drives me crazy. If you are going to throw ammo around everywhere don’t bother limiting it. It was really annoying that Bioware replaced the no ammo weapons of Mass Effect with infinite clips on the floor for Mass Effect 2.

      • Airmantharp
      • 6 years ago

      That, and the ‘mining’ mini-game made the game a little more tedious, but I think Mass Effect 2 was a perfect example- once the difficulty was turned up a little.

      Ammo and weapons were limited, forcing you to take cover, use squad-mates intelligently, make tactical advances and be careful about how and what ‘abilities’ you used.

      Oh, and it was still a decent shooter. You still had to actually hit your targets, and headshots counted, rewarding skill with faster progression.

        • peartart
        • 6 years ago

        Fair enough, Mass Effect 2 definitely isn’t the worst offender. Specifically I remember being limited not so much by the availability of ammo as the amount you could carry at a time, especially for certain weapons, which is it’s own sort of frustration. (No army would have their soldiers carry four different weapons and then expect them to scrounge for ammo in the middle of a battle.)

    • bthylafh
    • 6 years ago

    Here’s my old-man moment: my favorite pure shooter is still Doom, almost 20 years later.

    It’s not quite vanilla Doom – that’d be a bit silly; we don’t have 320×200 VGA monitors anymore – but enhanced with GZDoom + Brutal Doom and high-resolution textures. Crucially, the gameplay is the same old stuff that I loved in my early teens: hordes of enemies, lots of ammunition, and tons of third-party maps, many of which far surpass the originals in fun, beauty, and/or challenge.

    Id really ought to forget about redefining the FPS and make Doom 4 essentially as Doom 2 with modern graphics and fully 3D maps. That’s it. Screw the story, it doesn’t matter. Give me lots of fairly stupid monsters, lots of guns, no automatically-regenerating health, and an automap. We’d love them for it and they’d make a ton of money. It’s how those guys were all able to buy Ferraris back in the mid ’90s, and I’d be willing to bet a sum that it’d work again.

      • Captain Ned
      • 6 years ago

      A modern CyberDemon would be the one thing to get me back into gaming. That said, I think I need to dig up my GoG credentials and give SS2 a whirl.

      • hubick
      • 6 years ago

      If you have an Xbox, I highly recommend you check out [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Defense_Force_2017[/url<] and it's followups - great for co-op! 🙂

      • raen7
      • 6 years ago

      One word for you people: Descent. Descent-Rebirth & D2X-XL. Okay that’s more than one word, sue me. 😀

    • OhYeah
    • 6 years ago

    “If Quake was done today” illustrates the root of the problem quite well.

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU[/url<]

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 6 years ago

      Nice one!

      • a_non_moose
      • 6 years ago

      @OhYeah: Awesome. I was getting annoyed at the long series of intro movies and thinking “get on with it”.

      That’s half the point, I then realized. <G>

      • Kharnellius
      • 6 years ago

      Lol, awesome. At first I didn’t realize the “sighing” was the player.

      Loved the ending showing how awesome games used to be. 🙁
      *tear*

      • BabelHuber
      • 6 years ago

      At the end of the clip, you can see some ‘Quake done quick’-style rush.

      This is the difference to today, back then you not only completed the single player campaign once and called it a day. Instead, people were exploring the possibilities of the game engine to the extreme.

      This was because the engine tself was very well programmed and allowed lots of fun stuff, like rocket/ grenade jumping, strafe jumping, wall climbing with the plasma gun and whatnot.

      Multiplayer also was big fun, I remember meeting some Pros in Q3A online who beat the s*** out of me, e.g. by hitting me with a rocket, then switching to the railgun and fragging me while I was still thrown through the air by the rocket explosion.

      I learned to try this out also, and it was always cool when this combo worked. I also learned that when you were thrown around by a rocket explosion, you still had to occupy the enemy by constantly shooting at him, which not only put him under stress, but also altered your own flight path which made you harder to hit.

      Also the guns were very well balanced – a noob with a lightning gun, a rocket launcher and a railgun couls still be beaten by an experienced player with a machine gun.

      I so liked it to respawn, frag a rocket launcher-noob with the default machine gun and pick up his rocket launcher afterwards. And I so hated it when somebody did that to me!

      It was pure adrenaline ultra-fast gameplay which required constant concentration, after 1 hour of Q3A online you had to make a pause!

      And then the Mods! Rocket Arena FTW!

      But nowadays all is watered down somehow, and all is repetetive.

      E.g. I can’t stand all the war shooters who play in the presence, they are boring. BF2 was OK, but I prefered the gameplay of BF1942, especially the mods like Forgotten Hope. The gun of a soldier behaved like a railgun in Q3A, and fighting a T34 with an Assault Gun was so much fun!

      Why does nobody release a WW2 shooter anymore? Or what about a WW1 shooter? Why not fly biplanes and zeppelins online? Why not have WW1-style artillery, tanks, submarines, battlecruisers?

      Now this would be cool!

      • Scrotos
      • 6 years ago

      Also a Doom-style one:

      [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4yIxUOWrtw[/url<] [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NURfvG0lfpA[/url<]

    • bthylafh
    • 6 years ago

    There will always be fresh 14-year-olds, and so there will always be a market segment catering to them. It’s why, for example, there’s always a musical act occupying the Justin Beiber/Britney Spears/Backstreet Boys slot.

      • Choz
      • 6 years ago

      Add to this the fact that every year there is a new batch of 14-year olds with ever decreasing attention spans and ever increasing desires for instant gratification.

      Once you are over 20 you have to start getting used to the fact that every year new FPS games are going to be less aimed at you and more at the “kids” you feel are lowering the quality of your playing experience.

    • ratborg
    • 6 years ago

    This is one of the reasons why I liked the recent X-Com game so much. The combat was more like a chess match than run and gun. Figuring out optimal placement for your squad was great fun. I found the base management and satellite side games to be speed bumps to getting back to the fight. FPS are fun in short bursts but need to look at other games for long term fun.

    • nico1982
    • 6 years ago

    I’m a few hours in into Bioshock and feel the same. The only barely decent firefight so far has been [spoiler<]the one before embarking the gondola[/spoiler<], which could have been much better if it was longer, with waves of enemies forcing you to fall back, had more tangible effects of the tears you choose to exploit, etc. It is sad to think that MoH and CoD games of the early 2000s were more challenging, gameplay-wise. Side note: being 30+, age might start to play a factor.

    • Spotpuff
    • 6 years ago

    Try dark souls. Even the most basic enemy in the game can kill you even if you’re at the endgame.

      • nico1982
      • 6 years ago

      Dark and Demon’s Souls are awesome, and a proof that a game is not required to be ‘accessible’ to sell.

    • tipoo
    • 6 years ago

    I did find the gunplay a bit simple, the big guys were the only challenge and that became a match of run away, turn, keep shooting until dead. I didn’t realize how close I was to the end of the game and ended up not spending any of my money (well apart from some ammo and health kits, no major upgrades though) and yet still it was very easy to get through. I also barely found any vigors,I just had 2 or 3 while there are I think 20 somewhere in the game. With all 20 I imagine it would be a cakewalk. The final battle I failed a few times but once I realized that there is no consequence for you dying I won pretty easily by not worrying about health, plus Elizabeth would usually throw a health thing when you got too low.

    It was also kind of funny because during the parts she’s mad at you, she’d say something like “I dont’ trust you Mr Dewitt” in a grumpy tone, and then the next second you’d need a lock picked and she’d be all “SURE THING MR DEWITT I’D LOVE TO”.

    There was also a bit of the back-and-forthing that people hate in games towards the middle, but the story never got boring for me.

    But all that doesn’t really bother me, because I played Infinite for the incrediballs story and the wonderful expressive characters as you said. I really did care about Elizabeth and Booker by the end and was satisfied at the bittersweet resolution. What makes me sad is that people dismiss games as a storytelling mechanism, but this story would easily rival Hollywood movies or many books. It comes together in a very satisfying way at the end, it was as satisfying as Bioshock 1 with even more mind bending-ness.

    There is some hope for the things you are asking for though, looking at The Last of Us gameplay it’s just like you want, not a huge swarm of enemies but rather fewer that matter more, constantly worrying about ammo and supplies, etc. ZombiU had similarly scarce ammo but had some other problems.

    • dpaus
    • 6 years ago

    I totally understand what you’re saying; it’s how I felt, uh, about 20 years ago.

    I basically quit playing games in the early 90s, about the time that long, stupid cut scenes were combined with having to complete arbitrary (and usually pointless) ‘missions’ in order to unlock game capabilities. As far as I’m concerned, I paid for a game, i.e., something to have [i<]fun[/i<] with, not be forced to sit through endless low-quality mini-movies which segue between sessions of telling me how clever the game designers are.

      • Glix
      • 6 years ago

      Dark Forces – Jedi Knight, played for the cut scenes and the saber action. 😀

    • derFunkenstein
    • 6 years ago

    [quote<]...I couldn't stand to play more than a couple hours at a time.[/quote<] I think we found the problem. A couple hours at a time is a long time.

      • boskone
      • 6 years ago

      Not at all. Good games are engrossing enough that you play for hours, then wonder where the time went. Any game that’s only good to be played for an hour or so at a time is trash.

      As an example: I would routinely lose a whole afternoon to Mass Effect, often enough that I just stopped playing during the day. Mass Effect 2, with it’s designed-for-consoles simplification is barely good for an hour or so before bed.

      The fact that people think a couple of hours is a long time is a very negative statement about the state of gaming.

      • Arclight
      • 6 years ago

      I remember staying up all night while playing Half Life or Quake (II and IV)

        • derFunkenstein
        • 6 years ago

        That doesn’t make a couple hours anything other than a long time, it just means you’ve gone longer. Even when I was in my worst Starcraft Brood War phase, playing what I look back on as “constantly”, I still never went more than 4-5 matches in a row. 25-30 minutes a piece, that’s like max 2.5 hours, usually less. Then I’d find something else to do for a while and then I’d be back into it.

          • Arclight
          • 6 years ago

          Wait, i thought we were talking single player…..multiplayer, i think i routinely spent more than 10 hours/day (sometimes a lot longer, sometimes less) playing on lan back in the good ol days, with only minimal breaks for meals and nature calls.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 6 years ago

            I’m just talking in general. I don’t think I’ve ever gamed like that. You’re talking about something completely foreign to me (though I suppose I’ll be in the minority). I’ve spent “all day” playing a game, but it’s in 1-2 hour chunks, taking a break to do something else entirely for a while, not just to hit the john.

            edit: I might take it back, there may have been a couple times when I was in the same room with someone where we’ve done that, but it’s because they pushed me to move on. I’ve never done it of my own accord or because someone in particular was online.

      • sweatshopking
      • 6 years ago

      that’s because, like me, you have children. i can’t imagine playing games for more than a “couple hours”. my kids would eat each other.

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 6 years ago

        Invest in separate cages.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 6 years ago

          That’s a really good idea.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            Wife says more than 1 cage is cruel

            • lilbuddhaman
            • 6 years ago

            2 cages… and flowers [spoiler<].... and a muzzle? (No offense implied about your wife)[/spoiler<]

            • derFunkenstein
            • 6 years ago

            Some wives might like that better than others.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            my wife is pretty not fun. i mean, who wants to cuddle with The King?

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 6 years ago

            That depends – if she’s Elvis from the 1968 special I’d cuddle with her.

            Might just be the leather and the hair though. Rrrow!

            Now wraparound glasses Elvis is just out. The sweet karate moves are a plus though.

            Sorry – I know too many Elvis fanatics.

        • tootercomputer
        • 6 years ago

        or worse. 🙂

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      I finished BioShock Infinite in two sittings. (Granted, the second half was during a Sunday, just chillin’.)

      I had a similar experience as Cyril, except the vigors left me even more krogothed. Devil’s kiss was useless. Possession was only spammed to get more money from vending machines. Shock Jockey had too much of a 2007 BioShock vibe. Bucking bronco was fun for two uses, but then I realised shooting was faster. I could go on.

      Basically I just shot everything that moved on my screen. This made the game desperately keep popping up the following message on the bottom of the screen: “Don’t forget to use your vigors!” (Or something to that effect.) Well, bollocks to that, I say. All the vigors were awful.

      Edit: the game? It was majestic. But for me the fight sequences consisted of the carbine and the pistol, and many left mouse button clicks. That’s it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This