Lets talk about the level design of half life and why it was soo good

ive gotten very interested in the level of half life (1998) and how it feels just soo good to play one of those levels and why some games such as cod couldn't do the same

 

Honestly, the level design isn't what separates Half Life. The roller coaster level design in Half Life is just as well executed as the roller coaster level design in Modern Warfare. It's the game design that really separates the two, and that's mostly dependent on the tone and feel the two are divided on.

I know it's cool to S*** on CoD, and nothing says OG neckbeard like extolling the virtues of Half Life, but the differences are almost entirely based on their starting philosophies and were executed upon to equal levels of quality.

 

What was it about HL's level design that made it good in your eyes?

 

There's a book called "Half Life 2 Raising the bar". It mostly talks about Half Life 2, though. It might be worth checking out.

 

I've never actually played Half Life for more then a few minutes. Age of Empires was my go to game for the late 90s, I didn't go back to FPSs until Halo.

What did I miss that was so awesome? Is it something I need to go back and play?

 

My favorite game of all time. Just played through it again a few months ago and once more I came away humbled and inspired. 1998 changed gaming, and Half Life was right there with all the rest of the now classic titles. So many breakthroughs that year. The only game that's ever come close to Half Life for me (close enough to tie, actually) is Bioshock.

I honestly feel that the restrictions that developers had to face back in those days made the games better. Doing more with less. Half Life is no exception. Nowadays there are simply too many ways to do too many things, and I think (for me, at least) it shows. Restrictions breed creativity. Necessity, of course, is the mother of invention. I for one truly miss those days.

 

I never played half life itself. I did however play the hell out of one of its mods (natural selection). It's pretty much what got me into fps type games, never really played them at all before that.

 

I played plenty before: Wolfienstien, Blakestone, Doom(s), 007, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake(s). And plenty after: Perfect Dark, Halo(s), Riddick, Battle Front, Red Faction, Mass Effect, Border Lands.

And yet somehow in the middle of that I missed Half-Life. In retrospect actually pretty surprising that I missed it.

 

One thing that sets Half-Life apart from Modern Warfare was the continuity between levels. The exit door in a level in Half-Life was the opening door to the next, so to speak. Whereas in Modern Warfare (and many other games for that manner) once you reach the end of a level the screen fades to black, presents you with a loading screen or cutscene, and teleports you somewhere else in the world, often an entirely different environment.

Of course this kind of continuity ties in with the narrative of the game, but it is one of the design qualities I praise Half-Life for

 

Did you play System Shock 2? I'm just curious because I found Bioshock rather unimpressive by comparison, but I could see how maybe that's different if one doesn't know System Shock 2. Also nostalgia bonus and all that, but I did replay SS2 after I finished Bioshock, and I still liked it more.

 

Yes. It was a groundbreaking FPS, pretty much. And you should also playe Half-Life 2 when you're done with the first one.

System shock 2 is Bioshock in space (or maybe even "Bioshock on steroids, in space"). There are many similarities between the two, down to enemy types. However, System Shock 2 had more complex mechanics, while Bioshock was more about the visuals.

 

Mass Effect is 3rd person.

I tried to play System Shock not too long ago and couldn't get beyond the low polygon -- everything. Its unfortunate, everyone always says it's a great game.
But I've enjoy Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite, and that's saying something coming from a non-fan of shooters. I believe if they have a really good narrative I can get into them.

 

To me Bioshock felt a bit like it was at first intended as a "spiritual successor" to System Shock 2 (which had me kind of hyped for it), that halfway during development got dumbed down to be a fairly typical AAA shooter, assumingly "to be safe" in regards to sales. I dunno, maybe I don't give it enough credit because I'm such a SS2 fanboy or had too high expectations? There's nothing wrong with being a regular AAA shooter, I enjoy those too. In that regard I liked Bioshock Infinite more than the first one, probably because I didn't expect anything else from it.
Singularity was a game that I didn't expect much else from, and was pleasantly surprised by. I've felt strangely reminded of the Half-Life games while playing it.

 

Sure. But it still fits into the FPS genre. The primary mechanic is wandering around corridors aiming a gun. It shares most of its design features with FPS games, and very much plays like an FPS. Moving the camera back a metre doesn't make the core game play any different.

There are a couple others on the list that had third person modes too. Bizarrely a first person camera is not a strict requirement for a FPS game.

 

It's enough of a difference to define the outcome of the "do I want to play this?" decision for many people, so I'd say it is pretty damn important. You might find it weird, but I've had numerous occasions where I've recommended a game and 3rd person camera, or first person camera, was named as the key reason for not being interested. Some have really strong preferences there. For some it also seems to have big implications on how well they can execute certain tasks in games. E.g. Yahtzee repeatedly complained that in Mirrors Edge first person platforming was a bad idea, but I suspect he is just bad at it, because I've played through the game several times and had no issues with the perspective. For me first person might actually be easier to handle than third person perspective in such situations.
Also the major mechanical difference between first- and third person shooters, is that almost all third person shooters make heavy use of cover mechanics, therefore I've often seen them called cover-based-shooters. That leads to a very different flow of combat, compared to lets say Bulletstorm or the Doom Reboot.

I'm pretty sure first person perspective and shooting are like the only strict requirements for a first person shooter. What you mean is "Shooter" in general I think.

I couldn't get into Mass Effect and only played 3 hours or so of the first one. To me it looked like more of an action RPG than a shooter. There's npc dialogs, other people in your party, stats, quests, narrative choices, abilities (iirc). Compare that to Gears of War, Max Payne 3, Dead Space, Stranglehold, Red Dead Redemption, GTA, Resident Evil, Space Marine, etc.... and you'll find a few differences.

 

But what value does this have to the design? As far as I ever got in HL (and what I can remember of 1 specifically), the game was still highly linear and would frequently seal up behind the player to keep them going forward. What did the continuity provide other than the feeling of being seamless? It just seems like a technical marvel rather than a design one.

Compare this to my first continuous 3D world in King's Field: The Ancient City which was structured and utilized like a 3D metroidvania. Sure, the middle of the game is a long, linear descent to the bottom of the city, but then there ends up being a dozen different things you need to get that have you run all over the world.

Rather than SS2, BS is more inline with SS1, personally. SS1 was also a pretty big influence for HL, too.

 

I get what you mean, but I think the problem has a lot more to do with developers today being a lot further away from the boundary of what's possible and what's not. Everyone's too busy trying to figure out how to make another openworld rpg with spells and quests in less than a decade, to consider what might be just over the horizon of what's possible in this industry. There are so many new avenues to explore, such as VR, different kinds of advanced interactivity such as AIs and environments that react closely to what you do and give the player a totally different sense of control.

In fact when I read up on new stuff that's being tried out in articles on Gamasutra for example, it's often AAA companies that are pushing the boundaries, and it's not even stuff that necessarily requires a lot of money.

From my perspective there's just a pervasive sense of apathy and reiteration, if not a total march backward in time, when it comes to a lot of indie projects.

 

It makes it very different.
Third person view allows platforming mechanics, opens up posibility for more complex platforming mechanics, ups requirement for animations and greatly increases field of view.

Basically, compare Mirror's Edge and Tomb Raider. That's Third/First person difference. Or, I don't know, imagine playing Devil May Cry in first person.

 

I gotta jump in here to say - YES half life was awesome, the levels might not be so cutting edge in their design these days, but back then it was absolute eerie, creepy, very realistic and at the same time surreal level design that I love.

Now, I am biased because my deep passion for game dev started in the worldcraft editor - AKA hammer editor, back in the good old days when CS had just barely been released, and FPS games had really started to kick ass in the graphics and story department...

Anyway if you have not played through half life the original and your a game developer - drop everything your doing and go do it right freaking now. Don't buy it, you can get the COOP standalone version and play with your friends online for free from steam:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/225840/

And yes, half life rocked for its level design, but not just that! It rocked for having a really solid, really great character controller, and weapon implementation, and basically all the major aspects that modern games screw up left and right!

I can't dog on COD in comparison because those guys work really hard on the smooth character controller as well, but it is not a fair comparison, half life basically paved the way for COD and Battlefield and all the big dogs of FPS games today... without half life, we would have a drastically different FPS world that we live in now, I guarantee it. I wonder if we wouldn't be blasting as many zombies? Haha

Also, headcrabs.

 

Immersion!

Could very well be, I never really played the first one. I tried it in recent years but it didn't win me over like SS2 did and probably could still do today if I had never played it. Do you think it's worth another try? Should I wait for the remake?

I agree, although many people would argue it's a bad thing ^^. I don't have a strong opinion on this. I understand why people hate that trend, but I also liked many of those linear scripted games.

 

Half-Life is the iPhone of the FPS genre. Half-Life didn't invent the genre, or many of the mechanics it implemented, but it perfected them and put them all together perfectly in a way that changed the industry.

Totally disagree! It was so stressful and perfect! And created the best Freeman's Mind episode.

 

Also I forgot another point about half life that rocked - the audio! The sound was always point on and creepy. You heard grindy, mechanical creepy noises from damaged machines... you heard electrical buzzing and hissing from busted computers and hardware... the zombies! They stood out so much for those freaky clacky noises...

And man, when you first see a creepy zombie hunched over a dead body working his hands around the guts... pure golden gaming creepiness you don't get out of the best of this generations "jump scare" type games... that deep down horror of "Oh god, that zombie is currently eating that dude" - and at the time it had to be one of the only games to put a player in that kind of position no?

EDIT: DOH! Almost forgot the iconic and unforgettable alarms:

Spoiler: Sounds of HL you won't forget.

 

yeah... I'm gonna toss that one out with "because it makes it more fun." Things like the continuous space and no-cut cutscenes are just tangible details that people can latch on to easily and prescribe themselves being immersed because of (as opposed to keeping you immersed). Just think about how it's fundamentally a nerd power fantasy, and see if you can divorce yourself from the premise and presentation.

Bare in mind that the only shock game I've finished is Infinite. I have not cared for the horror elements much, and I've liked SS2 the least. SS1 is definitely interesting, I think the GOG version is basically the "portable" mod compilation that makes it slightly more approachable as a modern FPS than the Ultima Underworld mod that it more or less was. The remake is sounding like it should be good, but it's not trying to be one to one from what I hear.

 

Loved, loved, loved System Shock 2. Another of my most favorite games. When I saw Bioshock for the first time I wasn't interested at all. The setting and theme didn't grab me. My wife wanted me to play it while she watched so I got it for that. At first it was simply ok but the further I got into it the more I fell in love. By the end I was totally captivated.

With that said, System Shock 2 is one of the games I've only played through once or twice, even though it's an all time favorite. I've a feeling that when I go back to do it again it might just surpass Bioshock, so you may be correct that SS2 is even better.

While we're on the subject of Bioshock games, the sequel was meh, abd Infinite is one of the worst games I've ever played. Tried to get through it a few times now and just can't bring myself to put up with its badness. That game, to me, is a total disappointment.

I'm on my phone right now and it's harder to type a lot but I'll comment some more later most likely on the original subject of the thread, why I think Half Life level design is so good.

 

I raise you the Trash Compactor level, you were knocked down and faded to black, then loaded to another scene

 

I confess I have no interest in first person shooter games.

Though I love Mass Effect

I think a significant part of it is what Martin_H says--ME isn't really a shooter. It has shooter gameplay, but that's not really what it's about.

I DID play Bioshock Infinite, which is technically a shooter, though I played it for the story (which I read about many, many times beforehand). I also played Far Cry 3 (mainly because I got it free, but honestly I think the story is really interesting), though outside of main missions that doesn't really play like a normal "FPS"--at least a normal FPS in my mind, that goes back to games like Medal of Honor Allied Assault.

I have Bioshock, Bioshock 2, and System Shock 2. Unfortunately I really don't like horror games at all (though I've gotten reasonably far through Alien Isolation and Dead Space) so I really have no motivation to play through Bioshock. Plus the "Objectivism is bad m'kay" narrative seems kind of juvenile to me (while the idea of past mistakes and redemption a la Infinite really REALLY resonates with me). And System Shock 2 doesn't interest me at all either.

I apologize to the OP for going off on a tangent (though they haven't reappeared, so...), but I really do not like the term "immersive sim," at least as it's used for these types of games. Having choices in how you solve a level is not a "simulation," nor does it inherently make things more immersive. Sneaking around on my knees as Adam Jenson knocking out people isn't immersive.

Oh wait, that's an FPS too...well. Not the traditional kind.

 

The bottom line behind this apparent dilution of creativity is that the gaming business has matured significantly in the past two decades.

When HL released, their primary target market was what we'd consider high-end gaming PCs in today's market -- a relatively limited, very dedicated audience. Consoles were very closed platforms (compared to today) and still primarily oriented to awful standard-definition televisions. Spending money on high-quality GPUs was still an exception rather than something you got for free on your motherboard.

Fast forward to now, and game studios simply have to accommodate a much more diverse audience. If they're also working with a publisher, meeting deadlines and targets is even more difficult if you're trying to push the envelope.

 

Maybe then that's who we need to be aiming for again, to push the boundaries again. There are a lot of signs that this dedicated audience with all the latest tech looking for something from the future is more alive and kicking than ever.

In fact, the more I consider it the more it makes sense to me to make try to make short, sweet experiences that burn up the latest tech just so I can try something different.

Whether that's graphics fidelity, physics fidelity, trying to spawn a solar system on someone's gpu or whatever, there's very little going on that just plays with the limits just for the sake of it - and when it does it usually dies in some sort of metamorphosis between the original, crazy concept that gave birth to it, and the need to cater to everyone's expectations of 100 hours of gameplay and 200 side quests with looting.

Something about today's gaming ecosystem is destroying that drive to just, do high-tech crazy stuff for the sake of it, and it needs to be gotten back somehow.

 

Something = Mobile.

 

I'm sure it has plenty to do with it, but I don't see why it should. Maybe it's just that devs can't resist the opportunity to try to release on 20 different platforms (and the publishers too).

Also I think it has to do with a huge misperception about what constituted the 'good old days' of game development. Whenever I see a game that tries to make a point and 'recapture' that spirit of the 90s, it's some retro pixel platformer or something. I don't think people realize that a lot of what made that time great was that people were on the cutting edge of the technology used, and you can't recapture that spirit simply by returning to the same type of game that was being made.

And maybe if devs went ahead and tried to develop something new with the best of current technology, they'd find that the technological restrictions relative to what they wanted to make have the same effect of simplifying and 'purifying' the gameplay, as we perceive it to have happened in games like Half-Life.

 

Well said. I enjoy playing those retro games for what they are. But you are right in that I dislike this whole nostalgia nonsense. I am sure many people play such games for the nostalgia of it but not all of us do.

There are many reasons for the popularity of these kind of Indie games.

• other than scouring download sites and the web portals for Flash games they simply weren't available for play because game companies weren't making them anymore. You have to keep in mind not every person instantly wanted to switch over to nothing but 3D games and no more 2D games.
  
• being able to play through new experiences designed within the same kind of constraints as the games long ago used. And also generally applying some of the things learned since that time to improve the gameplay.
• while not always the case many of these 2D pixel art games trade-off a focus on graphics for a focus on gameplay, interaction & innovation. Play 5 minutes of most 3D games and see what you are doing in that time. Play 5 minutes of these 2D pixel art games and see what you are doing in that time. This is probably more true for the low res / ultra low res pixel art games than just pixel art / 2D games in general.
  
• this is kind of similar to some of the above yet distinct in its own right. These games just provide a very different experience. Bringing a world to life for the player to experience and not relying on graphics to "wow" the player & keep their interest. Instead relying on the game experience as far as exploration, the mechanics, the interaction and so on. There is a beauty to the games in how they use so little to do & represent so much.
• many of the games are modeled after a retro experience as far as the difficulty is higher and that also fills a need. For the people who don't want all of the hints/hold your hand experience. They just want something hard as hell to test their skills. And yes sure they could play that 3D game whatever it was called that was designed to cater to this niche. The point is maybe they don't want to play that game so these are many other options.

Actually it seems to me that what you are saying... wanting innovation... is already happening to some degree but you are looking for innovation in a different form maybe like graphics? Or simply are missing it because you might not check out any of the Indie 2D games simply because you see them using pixel art or simple abstract graphics?

You want storytelling innovation... check out Thomas Was Alone

a different way to play an action rpg game check out Undertale

Anyway, I see it as many of the Indies using this style... the retro pixel art (particularly the low res)... are doing so because they want to innovate in other ways. Obviously this isn't true for a lot of games as well. A lot of times people are just making games as fast as they can to put out on web game portals (less often) or throw on the mobile markets (majority of the time) trying to make money.

Anyway, the whole innovation thing is a big part of the appeal of the 2d pixel art / retroish games.

 

I'm talking about innovation that toys with the fidelity and the scope, and even the form itself of game experiences, in a way that is only made possible by the technology we have today.

There's absolutely no doubt that I put a lot of importance in graphics, but the thing that I find annoying about the topic is that I don't actually want to think about it, particularly in the sense of lighting. I'd be happy if I simply had some kind of super-duper totally-realtime GI that just worked when you open the editor. I don't want to know about lightmaps or baking or any of that stuff. And that takes me back to the whole idea of aiming for latest tech, since the ideal kind of super-duper lighting system would probably not be able to be used on a lot of platforms and hardware without ruining the elegance of the workflow by needing to be, for example, mixed with baking in certain areas for optimisation reasons.

I don't know about VR being the next revolution or anything like that, but it attracts me for the simple reason that it currently represents the next frontier in game experiences. It feels like it represents a new world of possibilities in terms of how the player interacts with the game world, what kinds of game experiences are possible that couldn't be fully enjoyed on a flat screen, etc.

That's the sort of area where I think it's possible for game experiences to return to a certain form of simplicity and regain the opportunity to represent something classic for its time.

In regards to games like Thomas Was Alone (haven't played it), or other games that use very simple graphics and perhaps innovate in some way, well, I'm the first to admit I'm probably prejudiced against them in some way. However what they represent to me is some kind of iteration of a historical art form, an art form which belongs to some other time. Like if someone came up with a new way to make a bow and arrow that shoots a bit further.

I'm not criticising that of course, just that what I'm talking about myself is returning to a lean and mean state of affairs specifically by being on the cutting edge of technology today.

 

I think you're missing something. Certain games, for example original Doom are actually great even to this day, and it is not nostalgia speaking.

I replayed the Doom and recorded the playthrough in the last year, and the game is actually great, and keeps player entertained using purely gameplay. Modern games, in comparison, tend to waste too much time chasing "cutting edge" technologies, and because of that they fail to recapture the spirit.

In some cases the game is just good.

 

Yes that's kind of my point. That by being on the cutting edge, by being in a new and mysterious playing field, it kind of drives that ability or tendency to create something that's just simply good and classic. I think it's hard now to try to make a classic fps or something like that because it's a genre that has been done in every possible way and it feels like there's nothing left to put your mark on.

So people try to add stuff to it that doesn't belong there and `innovate' simply by doing what people have avoided for good reason for a long time. Incidentally I think modern art suffers from this - nobody can think of anything else to do so they just 'invert' good artistic sense and pass it off as an innovation.

The answer is to drop the idea of trying to innovate on the past and find something new, something belonging to the time, that hasn't had its day yet.

And part of the reason why people avoid doing that, I think, is because somehow AAA companies have co-opted the idea of pushing technological boundaries and now if you want to be a cool indie you have to do something retro, which is just a road to futility because you're going to have to catch up someday.

 

@Billy4184 The bit I am not understanding is when you speak of innovation it seems to always be linked to the presentation of the game. Like the VR not having a "flat screen". It seems to me like there is a whole lot more than just trying to innovate on how the games look. That seems to be the one thing that so many people are doing above all else pouring most of the time into the graphics trying to make animations smoother, using higher resolution textures, perfecting the lighting, cranking up the engine power so they can have more polys in their models and of course VR. To me it is not all that innovative when it is the one area that everyone seems to be focused the most.

Now you did mention scope. And that is where these modern day ultra low res pixel art and other simpler easier faster graphics styles can definitely help. That has always been one of my own goals. To try to make a game one day of a pretty epic scope and the common sense way to make that realistic to achieve is to simply not spend so much time and other resources on the graphics.

In simple terms you can probably easily make 10 full levels / areas using a presentation style like Thomas Was Alone in the time it would take you to max out one square screen size of area trying to max out the visuals. Speaking just from the perspective of level design and getting the display on screen. Obviously that means you then have the other 90% of time (about 10 X more) to focus on other stuff. Whether it is adding a bunch of audio story telling, a bunch of interesting interaction with the game world, building an actual world (or maybe country) size game to explore or whatever.

Basically it's like you also said. I think we're kind of saying the same thing. It is this focus on maximizing graphics all the time that is the issue. Without that pretty much anything becomes possible. Yes, it would be awesome if we could all just instantly generate all graphics that we need and within the game they look absolutely stunning every time. But that just isn't the case and instead it is a very time consuming process and the logical solution is simply to not get caught up in it.

 

Can you give an example of some new reach in scope or tech you'd like to see? You mentioned GI...but how many gamers, gamers not devs, actually care about GI? I don't even know which games I've played that have GI, and that includes games like AC Unity or The Witcher 3. What super-obvious technological leaps do you think indies should be experimenting with?

Furthermore...were the games of yesteryear which pushed scope and tech indies themselves? From Wikipedia I read that Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington were former Microsoft employees--not your typical "indie." And that id Software was formed by guys already making games for another company. Not your typical "indie."

Indie in the way that Chris Roberts is, perhaps (who is doing something like what you suggest).

 

My point was kinda the opposite.

Doom is good because skilled people put enough effort into it. Not because of "cutting edge".

However, modern games tend to get distracted by "cutting edge", as result do not put enough effort in the right places, and produce mediocre content.

 

GI has little to do with this topic, I was simply referring to my point of view of graphics in general - although I think that in the graphics and lighting department there are a lot of nice things that could be done to take advantage of modern tech.

But it goes a lot further than that. For example, here's a thread I made about AI personality in games and what I would like to see out of it in the near future. There are a bunch of things:

• Much more advanced and reactive AI, not only in terms of behaviour, but range and fidelity of body movement and body language, with such things as physics driven animation.

• Full-body (or at least multi-limb) interaction with games, such as in VR;

• Voice interaction in games, preferably with AI;

• Generation of very large game worlds, such as in No Mans Sky;

• Much more immersive experiences, such as with VR, that enable much more subtle control of game experiences, and has the potential to take games into a variety of territories that were simply boring on PC such as social interaction and mind-games with NPCs and maybe other players.

• Procedural generation of highly interactive and detailed game content (not necessarily realistic) that enables the interaction with the environment to be the primary source of gratification - a very simple example being something like being able to generate a planet or a city with a set of parameters and then go and walk around inside it and interact with it.

• etc.

@GarBenjamin I definitely am implying a trend toward either `realism' in some sense, or at least a self-consistent fidelity of some kind that isn't possible through something like a 2D game, but I don't necessarily mean graphics as such. I just happen to like graphics a lot so it's hard to separate it from other things.

@neginfinity I don't quite agree, I think that the beauty of Doom's gameplay was indirectly a result of it being a new and cutting edge game, because it was not confused by any other interpretation of the genre, whereas now we have a million different interpretations of fps and it's very hard to innovate on it anymore.

 

I understand. I also am interested in a few of these (mainly AI and procedural generation), but I doubt most gamers are.

 

Well I was only talking about 2D because you mentioned 2D pixel art.

Of course, the same principle applies to 3D...

It surely seems like a lot of time would be saved for innovating in other areas if the graphics in a game were like any of these:

Instead of spending all of the time needed to make everything look similar to these

But I get it.... as soon as you say REALISM then your workload has increased by a crazy amount to make everything look good. I don't understand why that is needed but I do realize it is probably just a matter of personal preference.

 

I'm not sure, I think there are a lot of people looking for something new that feels different. And it ties back to the idea of targeting particularly that niche audience of gamers who want to see something really different.

I haven't played it, but Overgrowth shows something about the state of affairs amongst gamers - it seems to me to be basically a tech demo for procedural animation that's been in alpha for about five years, yet at a price point of $30 (excluding the current sale) it has sold plenty of copies and gotten mostly positive reviews - I thought it would have been ripped apart in fact. (By the way in case you're interested there's a nice GDC talk here on proc animation).

Anyway I'm not interested in satisfying casual gamers - for them there's an endless buffet of choices. The idea is to make something for those who want to see the future and have the tech to make it happen.

@GarBenjamin I somewhat agree, especially in terms of the detail of a game like Witcher. I really like something like Mirror's edge, sort of clean and simplistic yet very realistic.

 

Yeah by having a simpler graphics style you can potentially create more content and possibly create more interesting gameplay (look at exodemon).

 

Sometimes I think other people read my mind and say what I'm thinkin, but in a much more elegant way than I could ever say it.

@MV10 has some compelling and agreeable reasoning. I'd also say - profitability plays a huge role in mindset of keeping what we got and iterating in small stages to milk as much as can be milked, OR going for bleeding edge without knowing what the market may/may not like to see, and knowing in advance the market shrinks drastically when creating something on the bleeding edge - for those who only have the very latest hardware builds.
AFAIK (not researched) is there any indies who have made big bank $$$ from developing VR/AR? Assuming no - why would anyone decide to go bleeding edge when the money is not there? Beyond just trying to push the limits, most people want to make a profit from there designs. If a developer can't make a profit - (bigger is better) they will find themselves having to update resumes quickly. Even people who lie and claim money isn't a driving force for investment need to see positive returns on investment - or they will invest in other avenues/industries.

And gets over-hyped with unfulfilled promises and expectations. No Mans Sky

Agree with basically everything you mentioned, though I think we may be missing one element. A lot of current developers see a large audience (Millennials) that didn't get to experience the 80s-90's pixel art craze completely. Although they may have played a couple popular games on gameboy or maybe even PS2-3 and Steam, a large portion of games (great games) were played by Gen X - and those games can be updated with modern mechanics to be played by the current/up coming generation of gamers who have excess money due to there parents working there butts off.
Although there are a lot of games from that era that are not being recreated, there are a ton of story elements and mechanics that could be 'borrowed' from older games to fit right nicely in the market today. Its much easier to say "I'm going to recreate Legend of Zelda but with different graphics and a couple updated mechanics" than it is to create something from scratch.

 

I think there's opportunity here precisely because of this. A lot of indies seem to have been sucked into the idea of trying to copy AAA games in terms of method, namely aiming for casual gamers, high replay factor, stuff like that. The problem is that AAA companies can do that type of game much better, market it much better, continuously create all of the content that keeps people coming back for more, etc.

The thing is that if you make a game for gamers who want something different, you can have a lot more success precisely because a lot of AAA don't bother with niche markets or risky new ideas.

I think Overwatch was a good example of something that succeeded relatively well (despite a huge array of reasons why it shouldn't have, not least because it's hardly worthy of being called a game) because it catered to people who wanted to see something new. And I think that No Mans Sky would have been received very positively by a lot of people had the devs been more open (though might not have made quite so much money). No Mans Sky is kind of an exception in that they got swept into the mainstream and failed at being a mainstream game - but it's the kind of game that indies have a good chance of succeeding with because of its somewhat niche character, and its attempt to do something different.

 

Pretty sure at 5$ the reviews would be mostly negative. Often people willing to spend less are a lot more entitled. People willing to drop 30$ on a really unfinished game seem to be more patient. Barrier to entry can be a good thing, even for game prices. Raise it high enough and your only customers are those that really want to have the thing. There are some other psychological mechanisms at work too, that bias people towards liking their expensive purchases.

 

Well that's what we need to do then to do something different, aim at niche gamers who will pay a good price.

By the way, although I thought that $30 for that game would have gotten a few people worked up, I definitely don't think releasing at $5 would have been any better. $15 or 20 is what conventional wisdom would dictate, yet I think here is the evidence that quite a few people really, really want something new.

In fact maybe No Mans Sky's $60 price point would have worked out well, had it not been marketed at the wrong audience.

 

That's not the truth at all, it's a sequel to a cult classic, lugaru, which is why people are waiting for it, lugaru looked like this:

I can't enter these thread and not have a controversial opinion it seems, but the goat for me was golden eye and perfect dark, Before that I played a lot of fps and so call immersive sim like deus ex and system shock (bad control) ... and I always thought half life was just an evolution of duke nukem style of set pieces, not really impressed, and doom had already enemy that fight each others and detect you by sound ... Now golden/dark introduce incredible ideas that no one really run with it because the fps keyboard mice warrior where too busy having instant gratification I want disarm back ...

 

You can say just about any successful AAA title is good because skilled people put enough effort into it. The question is the nature of that effort... and the nature of that effort made it a cutting-edge product and absolutely did contribute to what made it any good. The same people made Wolfenstein, and while it's well-respected, it isn't remotely in the same league. It was quality, not quantity.