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

You have show nothing about social stealth nor their brand of modal movement!

There is a major difference in having overlap but what about the part that don't? They don't disappear because there is some similarity. I can think of prior experiment in those domain, but I refuse to share them if people aren't capable to point at those part.

I mean superficial analysis is how we get the same repeated crap everytime.

 

I will certainly have to take a look at this, never heard of it tbh

 

Of course they're going to build on top of the previous games... I mean improve on them... add to them to some degree particularly in the presentation. Obviously it was all 2D back then and now is all 3D. For the movement... of course better graphics & animation is just the norm every year when AAA games come out. Then yes add some "coolness" thing. The USP for this game or version of the game.

What I was getting at is it is all just a natural evolution. Mix and match. Then add a tiny dash of a secret ingredient. And it is a great thing that todays games are getting to the point now where some represent 2 or even 3 of those classic arcade games from 30 years ago.

Assassin's Creed didn't invent social stealth. I am positive I have played games with that in it long ago. Where you concealed your identity and blended in to a group (in fact I think it was even a hooded group of monk like characters) and walked with them and otherwise blended in with the enemies. And certainly stealth has been around for a long time. Heck even the old Berzerk seems like it had it in it to a degree.

I'd have to dig a bit to pull up the classic games with that in them.

Well heck actually I do remember one Castle Wolfenstein where you can put on an enemy uniform and won't be recognized and this was a key to successfully playing the game. It seems like you could also collect medals from the enemies and / or found in chests which perhaps increased your perceived rank to the enemies. That game actually had several things in it that are common in games today.

Basically just saying any one of us can look back 30 years ago and combine pieces of one game with another game and so on and now.... 30 years later for most people it would be something "new" perhaps even revolutionary. And perhaps it would be a completely different combination that would result in something extremely unique and exceptionally good. But people just greatly underestimate all of the things that were done long ago in classic games for some reason.

 

I don't think people underestimate old games at all, but you can be innovative (ie not revolutionary) by extending what's been done. For example traversal in AC is doing the same basic function that traditional control, but not having to push button with timing to navigate is not the usual way (zelda 64 had some model movement on that type too with their auto jump), they also adapted level design to be much more complex to what would have been possible with non modal movement, and finally the gameplay use this complexity of geometry and path to shift the focus from executing the path (like in platformer) to strategizing the path, which is also to how you typically approach stealth and introduce verticality at a much higher degree. This is important because most other game stayed at the same level of their ancestor on these point. Similarly social stealth was primed to have much more potential and nuance than line of sight and putting on a costume (I was thinking of hitman who also comes with restriction per costume as to where you ca be), though that's where my design criticism start as they didn't do really much to explore that potential. We can acknowledge these in context without having to dismiss them because pac man did chase sequence 20 years ago.

Anyway I'm out I too much into defending design

 

Ha ha! Fair enough. I was mainly just getting at I think this is why some of us don't "ooh and ahh" over the new games as much as others do. It's not that there is no appreciation of what the games are doing it's mainly that given the amount of time between a game that did the basic concept and the new game using that concept today and taking into account how much the other aspects of games have changed during all of that time.. well there isn't all that much difference in how... well yeah exactly what you just said... "though that's where my design criticism start as they didn't do really much to explore that potential".

That's it in a nutshell. When I hear and see a new game exploring a concept that was explored 30 years ago and I see how much everything else has changed (budget, project duration, graphics quality, amount of content, etc) it's like the actual gameplay stuff even if they are touting it as a big deal lags greatly behind everything else. As far as the amount of advancement that has been made on the concept compared to the amount of advancement that has been made on everything else.

I think more or less we kind of see it the same way.

 

I find it very interesting. Your perspective is insightful, to me at least.

 

Yes I agree @neoshaman you view & talk about things in a very deep insightful way. Makes it very interesting.

 

Concur.

 

Hitman games featured stealing clothes and trying to blend in the environment. Acting suspiciously or havinga wrong weapon alerted guards. Hitman Blood Money was released before Assassin's Creed.

It wasn't assassin creeds "Press button to blend with the crowd", though.

Yes, this is correct. AC did recombine existing elements and improved on them slightly. I just didn't see it as a big or "groundbreaking" step. It was one step in gradual improvement. Not something on the level of first half-life, first doom, etc.

 

Thanks for the appreciation! I never know when I go too far, sometimes I feel like I'm needlessly opinionated around details people don't care about

 

@GarBenjamin don't forget splinter cell which more or less died after AC came out

 

That's interesting. Are you saying AC actually caused the death of SC? That's pretty major considering the huge popularity of the SC games at least at one time. But SC wasn't something I got into. I didn't realize it was dead and thought they were still making them every few years or so.

 

Splinter Cell was ruined more by bad decisions that forced it into more of a combat role than a stealth role than it was by AC. It was marred by a string of mediocre releases that would cause any AAA series to suffer.

 

Ah well that makes perfect sense. Because yes I remember the games focus heavily on stealth. If they changed the core focus away from stealth to more of a military shooter or other combat heavy focus that would definitely be targeting a different audience.

 

Yeah, it started with Conviction, which dropped a LOT of the stealth elements. Conviction itself was kind of a mess (though critically well received and a good seller) as it got delayed for a good like.... 3 years, I think?

 

yeah later SC's were bad because of the loss of the stealth focus, but it kinda does look like that AC is like a mix of Prince and Persia, SC and a little bit of ubisofts open world obsession.

 

AC started the open world obsession of UBI and all its (tower) tropes, it was also started as a prince of persia, they disobeyed during development to make AC, the director ended being fired. Also until AC ubi had trouble having a franchise success beyond the number 3. AC kind of thrive based on all the disobedience they did to create a winning formula, most notably they have a clear concept with generic enough element to be decline in any settings, for example the hood and hidden blade, the eagle metaphor, the leap of faith, rooftop chase, historical world tourism, they have all the basis of a good pulp, enough stable elements you can easily decline. Just look at how easy it is to fan to project these elements in other universe while keeping the identity. Yet they still found way to fatigue such a good concept, by AC 3 fatigue start to kick in, and they had already fatigue the ezio story arcs in 3 spin off, after that the series started to have decline prestige. Similarly their first farcry peaked at 3 sequels (farcry 4, the n1 being crytek). All their games sales and prestige seems to peak at 3, the first game is a rough gem, the second perfect the base, the third is more of the same and anything beyond have no idea what they want to do ... It's funny to contrast splinter cell to metal gear, as an example, whose prestige only get better other time (along with sales).

 

No kidding? I certainly didn't know this... didn't know it actually started out as a Prince of Persia game. But I can easily see heavy Prince of Persia (even compared to the classic from long ago) influence in the game.

Gotta love those small-minded people, eh? It was more important for the director to follow orders than it was to make a great and very profitable game (I know the original AC was very well received by gamers). It's a very sad thing but the way it goes so often. But at the same time that is a perfect motivation for such a person to strike out on their own and have their own business. Basically that kind of behavior is the mark of an entrepreneur.

 

This isn't true. Splinter Cell Blacklist came out in 2014 and is the second best game in the series (after Chaos Theory of course). There are rumors that another is on the way, to be voiced by Ironside again.

Conviction was originally a completely different game. Sam was homeless, bearded...they eventually brought him back around to a more traditional design, but the gameplay is definitely very, very different from a traditional stealth game. You can't knock out enemies. The game frquently places you in situations designed to be "fought" out of. The focus was placed on "Mark and Execute," a technique designed to kill people. I think you could legitimately say that it "isn't a Splinter Cell game."

But Blacklist changed all of that. Blacklist has some of the best gameplay in the series. And for the first time, actual ghosting--ghosting means moving through a level without interacting with enemies at all, not simply knocking them out--is a viable path.

 

AC 4 was a jolt of life for the series, but largely I think you're right. More recently part of the problem is that the tech hasn't been stable. AC Unity is the key example of course, with its missing faces on release, and to this day getting 60 fps is a challenge.

AC Syndicate is actually a good game, but the damage was already done with Unity.

You mention that Metal Gear's prestige only gets better over time, but that isn't necessarily the case. MGS 2 is largely regarded as the best in the series, and many fans saw MGS V as an enormous departure for the series (for good reason), though how much of that is due to the intentions of Kojima and how much is due to the rushed nature of the game is up for debate.

 

Yeah mgs 5 is an odd case, mgs was always about crazy story and very good gameplay mixed by author lead insanity who like to play with his audience (the ladder in mgs3).

AC4 is another odd case, it's been praise for the pirate mechanics much more than the typical AC mechanics (with disappointing stealth follow missions), in fact the true game that was praised for doing more with the formula was the vita game, originally off brand spin off send to death on a dead platform, but ended up being retcon as part of the main series, due to incredible sales relative to the platform, and great reception among fan with a character that had more charisma (in a time where game concepts with woman were turned down, let alone a black woman). AC4 is basically using the strength of having a very generous formula that allow entire new setting and idea to be compatible.

Also they have an incredible universe incredibly boringly presented and exploited (especially the present day and overarching plot). AC unity didn't fall because of technical issue only too, people had issue with the pacing, lack of draw in the story and lack of charisma. AC syndicate came back to a more gameplay lead structure very close to AC1 with charismatic characters (people really like the woman lead too, surprisingly) but also have turn the setting more "cartoony" overall (don't know yet if it's a good thing for long term reception). They rest on the episodic nature of their formula too much (new era, new character, new setting, popular historical events, super convenient framing device!).

Also now witcher 3 has happened, while it's not the same genre it has set expectation very high for everyone (so much it retroactively made bioware look bad for rpg lover).

 

What do you mean by more "cartoony?"

And yeah The Witcher 3 definitely raised the bar. I hear that the next one coming out this year is taking a lot of cues from it, and becoming more like an action RPG (which they've already been doing since Unity).

 

AC1 was a story about freedom vs control, it was philosophical at time, each side had great thing to say and thesis to advance that wasn't clear cut manichean, this has degrade other time but ac3 and even ac4 was about this ideal (the founding father fighting for their own freedom at the expense of other (native, black in the last scene, discussion between the heroes and his templar father), pirates trying to create a democracy and their failing in the face of tyranny, etc ... in syndicate you have down to earth heroes sweeping through rooftop and a villain full of tics and no motive except he punch desk, marx is mocked as hipster fodder devoid of thesis and other character are just there with traits and tics but no real thesis. in fact the assassin's ideal start to blur with templar in a both side are bad (instead of pondering the responsability of acts like in ac1) which is blatant in ac unity as they sided with power on the french revolution (the hero is an aristocrat who is legitimized in his status, the revolution side is unilaterally evil, the mass is shown as that scary mob, they show the assassin's as corrupts and weak, put napoleon on assassin's side (which is debatable), there is no real thesis of the gray morality like in ac 1, it's rather manichean). And part of this is that the original team have completely quit the game after ac3, after a slow bleed of talents. In fact you can see they made that inside joke in the present day part with a mock ubi soft (abstergo) being the templar den in which they corrupt the meaning of the assassin's with their game (it's even a plot point in ac liberation).

 

For whatever its worth, I thought the Ezio series was pretty idealistic as well. Assassins are shown pretty much always as the good guys and Templars are just evil (I mean, Brotherhood was about the Borgia after all).

I honestly feel like AC 3 changed that up somewhat. I think it did a decent job of showing not the Assassins but the founding fathers as deeply flawed people. It points out George Washington as the guy who ordered Indian villages razed. And that ending (the parting shot from the British) was very, very cynical. And in some cases, the Templars were fighting for the same thing as the Assassins, just with different people.

Definitely agree about AC 4. It was a very romantic view of pirates.

Very interesting point about Unity. I had thought of it as simply returning to "Assassins and Templars are the same," but you're right, it's not just them as being the same, but both are corrupt. It's like neither is truly aspiring to a higher ideal.

And definitely agree about Syndicate. The main villain was just poorly done. I found it very interesting, though, how the Assassins, who are typically a "rebellious" or "anti-order" force, were working with the Queen. Seemed like a huge change of pace for the series.

Worth pointing out that in the AC universe, Ubisoft works with Abstergo (presumably unaware of their Templar affiliations) to produce the AC games (AC-ception...).

 

This one is funny, I'm Caribbean, and when people say pirate of the Caribbean they never show actual Caribbean, it's just a romantic version of western escapism. When I got indie I tried to make a game that reinvent pirate from a caraibean culture feel (which has evolve to center around maroon instead), because we barely have anything that reference them in our basic imagination (it's something imported from europe generally, we don't cultivate it).

When I learn about pirates, they were fairly idealist and rather quite democratic (they elect the captain and they share the spoil equally, everyone as a say in decisions), they cultivate a harsh reputation (using spectacle like lighting fuse to impress on the beard, it's true story) only to actually avoid fight (which is super costly and destructive) and have people turning themselves over directly. In fact most people becoming pirate is actually revolting, it's because the way official boat enroll grunt people, by scrapping homeless, drunk, debt prisoner to toss them under the tyranny of a commander (hence the democratic turn when they go pirate).

Basically pirate are often everyday man who were forced into servitude and rebelled against authority (there is a fair number of opportunist too), which cast them as outlaw because society was ruled by aristocracy that didn't granted them those rights, hence they could not return home, they had to go rogue. They were incredibly sympathetic to slave which they often liberate from slaver boat. They also had a lot of good relation with native with which they had a custom of exchanging name (and from which they learn and imported a number of culinary practice, like buccaneer chicken).

So pirate depiction of ac4 is actually quite accurate (in spirit) except for the main character who is right out of a pulp trope. As a Caribbean the one who goes around robs and plunder are not pirates, they were these greedy old kingdom, they stole whole country and the fate of the actual Caribbean is truly sad. All those tales of cannibalism is greatly exaggerated, especially in face of the atrocity that was use on them, but people with power write history.

 

Another Halo fan! Glad to see I'm not alone Also played AOE, and AOM. I've never been a fan of RTS games but they were fun to fool around with as a kid.

 

I would be a Halo player if any of the last three were on PC. As it stands, I'm a huge fan of the universe (read a number of the novels). I think Microsoft crafted something really special there.

 

There is only one Halo novel I actually appreciate for a unique take on the Halo universe and clever writing. I don't recall the name but it begins on a human Insurrectionist asteroid colony, with a civ named Delgado. That was truly an innovative work. I suppose others may disagree with this opinion but tbh I don't appreciate dumb plots or writing poorly, especially for a novel. YouTube comments are quite disgusting lol

 

The Cole Protocol, I believe.

Interesting statements about poor writing. Halo novels (especially those by Eric Nylund) are some of the highest quality "extended universe" novels out there. The plots aren't always some twisting scheme, but they're typically very well-written.

I have no idea what you mean by Youtube comments.

 

Yeah, well you can go ahead and disagree.