jagan siis teiega ka, mis arvate?
Mr. Pink @ http://www.whatthechrist.com kirjutas:The Problem with Modern First Person Shooters
A few days back, I caught some flack for slamming the new Medal of Honor. I decided to give it another shot, thinking that maybe I’d been too quick to judge the game. I played the rest of the campaign – and honestly, my opinion hasn’t changed.
Here’s why.
I grew up in the golden era of first person shooters. I was a Counter-Strike addict, threw down with the best of them in Quake III and Unreal Tournament, and I’ve played just about every “big name” campaign driven shooter released in the past ten years. (Far Cry, Half-Life and Half-Life 2, etc.) The one thing that has always set the good games apart from the bad for me is the level of control that I have over how I play the game.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t mind playing through the occasional “campaign on rails”. I played and enjoyed the first two Modern Warfare games, and it’s virtually impossible for you to stray from the beaten path in either of those. I didn’t mind, though, because the plot was constantly moving forward and it was written well enough that I didn’t lose the desire to find out what happened next. And that’s the only way that a linear shooter will succeed. You have to have an engaging plot – just as you would in a movie.
The way I see it, there are three things that make titles like Medal of Honor hard to enjoy. First and foremost, it’s virtually impossible to do things your own way. You play the role of an apparently retarded protagonist, constantly hamstrung by obstacles that, for all intents and purposes, should be easy to navigate. But allowing you to progress on your own would require the game’s developers to actually design intelligent AI and an engine that responds to input from the player. That sort of thing takes time and publishers don’t like waiting for things these days, so you’re stuck relying on some sort of assistance (in this case a “buddy boost”) from one of your squad mates.
The second thing that infuriates me about most modern shooters is the utter lack of depth when it comes to combat situations. The only game in recent memory that didn’t screw this up was Crysis. You could approach enemies from the left, right, top, bottom, or straight up the middle in that game. You didn’t have to wait for some asshole teammate to tie his shoes or rub one out in the bushes. You didn’t get penalized for shooting a guy in the head instead of going in quiet. You were simply given an objective; accomplishing it was up to you.
The third and final thing that really gets me about modern shooters is campaign length. If I can finish a game in a few hours on an idle Saturday afternoon, then you can damn well bet that I won’t be shelling out $60 for it. I’m going to pirate it, instead. Plain and simple.
Perhaps I’m alone in my opinions, here. Maybe I’m just an older, jaded gamer who wants a new Half-Life or another Grand Theft Auto. But I don’t think that’s entirely the case. I think it has more to do with the fact that there’s a whole new generation of gamers playing shooters who just don’t know any better because they refuse to compromise on how good a game’s graphics and sound are for the sake of playing an older, far superior title that makes you actually use your brain to assess situations instead of just running in guns blazing.
It’s also the fault of greedy corporate giants who’ve realized that, like anything else, people are willing to pay top dollar for a sub-par product as long as it comes in a shiny package.
