These are some strange criticisms. Yes, there was a focus on games being “cinematic”. Yes, there was also a counter-culture to that, because there’s a counter-culture for every popular culture. No, Half-Life didn’t invent it; it iterated on existing ideas. Yes, others copied it, because iteration is far easier and more likely to be financially sustainable than outright invention. Likewise, others in the counter-culture didn’t copy it. There are pros and cons to that sort of design. If my friends and I both play through a game like that, we can reminisce and “hell yeah” and high five over our favorite moments. A more immersive sim “lite” design like Indiana Jones can easily lead to me getting the intended experience where Indy has to improvise his way out of a blunder by punching Nazis and my friend ending up in what he perceived to be automatic fail states (true story). The “detour” through Half-Life inspired games came coupled with those same years being littered with games that didn’t stick to its ethos.
The one thing I’ll agree with the author on is that we’re definitely currently living through the stark aftermath of this peak FPS era. It’s so rare now that a new FPS is made for me anymore. Maybe it’ll be Mouse: P.I. for Hire, but it won’t come with a split-screen deathmatch like the good old days.
I’m not sure if the author’s point here is “A lot of games emulated Half Life’s scripted sequences but in a worse way and that is Half Life’s fault” or “Half Life’s style of immersion overshadowed immersive sims and sandbox games and that was bad”. I could maybe get on board with the second but you can’t then go praising Naughty Dog because they mixed cinematics with their scripted gameplay.
As the author says, scripted sequences are a tool alongside cinematics and anything else. In the case of COD (I haven’t played a new one in around 15 years, so I’m talking from the perspective of COD4 and its derivatives. I don’t know how anything recent is structured) the briefing screens during loading are literally cinematics delivering narrative in a stylistically appropriate way. They do take away agency via QTEs (which act as resets for the gameplay and limit dynamism) or extended ‘you can jiggle your camera’ cutscenes, but those aren’t inherently bad, and Half Life doesn’t do them anyway.
Outside of maybe two moments in Half Life you have all of your weapons and abilities available, so those scripted sequences are not a cutscene you are forced to jiggle your camera at, but environmental set dressing or one-off combat scenarios. A cutscene showing a tank smashing into the room through a wall would break the flow of the firefight, and having it there from the start would take away the player’s ability to set up an ambush with tripwire mines or one of their other tools. A good scripted event doesn’t reduce interactivity, it is a stimulus for the player to interact with.
I agree with the author’s assessment that Uncharted and the Last of Us use the right tool at the moment for their stories.
I don’t get the criticism about Call of Duty and Halo following Half-Life’s success of limited cutscenes and scripted events to tell their stories. In fact as soon as the article started these were the exact games I thought of to rebut his point. They are the best story based FPS games of their generation and they don’t need an open world that’s believable in absence of its own protagonist.
Far Cry/The Division/Ghost Recon are all Open World shooters with a believable world. They have terrible (IMO, feel free to disagree) stories though.
I thought his analysis was interesting just not sure what the point was and if it was what I thought it was that Half-Life negatively influenced stories in games then I disagree.
remapradio.com
Najstarsze