Preface: I think there's an overall problem with the way people view videogames and what their purpose...their function is. This was my attempt at kinda of exposing this issue.
Original Post: July '12
Steam shows that I’ve played Half Life 2
approximately 19 hours and I’ve played Doom3 approximately 6. What it
isn’t aware of is how much I played the game prior to…ahem…buying it.
Yeah, yeah, I know! What I can I tell you? It was college and I was
broke and shameless. Point being is that added all up, I’d probably
played Doom3 more than HL2 and while I remember both games quite fondly,
what I don’t remember is Doom3 frustrating me the same way HL2
did and I think the reason why is because when all’s said and done,
it’s a better videogame…for two specific reasons:
1) Doom3 has a better story
Oh I'd love to see where he's going with this!
See here’s the thing about me: I’m old school. Atari 2600 old school, and given that perspective, the idea of the videogame as a delivery method for narrative is still new enough from my perspective to consider it a fad. In my eyes, a game’s story is a part of its presentation, in the same category as the graphics and audio. It’s nice if it’s well done, but it only has to be functional and provide sufficient context, so long as the gameplay is solid. It’s icing, not the cake.
I point this out so that you understand that I don’t apply as much respect for a videogame if it has a good plot with likable characters as most everyone else does. I remember the days when all that was needed was a text scroll or 1 page in the manual and I don’t think things have changed as much as we’d like to think they have. So when judging the story, I judge how it is told, because the interactive nature of the medium means that’s the most important aspect to take into consideration.
And in this regard Doom3 wins out.
Chris Franklin’s video on the Half Life series does a much better job explaining the storytelling flaws in those games than I ever could. Suffice it to say, while the plot in HL2 beats out anything in the Doom series by any standard, its integration into the game isn’t as successful. Doom, on the other hand, forgoes a complex narrative in favor of - as noted by Tycho of Penny Arcade - atmosphere out the asshole. The plot is practically retro chic: All hell has literally broken loose, are you a bad enough dude to survive it? There’s a stupid mad scientist that serves as the ‘human face’ antagonist, but it’s all so much background noise. The games real narrative focus is on your character and making him feel as alone and outnumbered as possible. Every objective you’re given in the game is in service to this story rather than the plot and it’s this consistent tone along with the phenomenal atmosphere the game exudes that creates a far more visceral and emotionally powerful experience.
2) Doom3 plays better.
Doom3 and Half Life 2 are shooters because that’s what you do in the games. You point your cursor at things you want to die and then press the fire button until said thing is dead and then move on to the next thing to kill. It’s incredibly integral to shooters that this core mechanic of shoot’n thangs is very refined since there’s not a lot of gameplay variety to distract the player…and Doom3 does it better.
HL2 has ‘sets’ of weapons with a ‘minor’ and ‘major’ weapon applied to each set, with some sets having implicit context sensitive actions. The rocket launcher only has ammo provided for it in sections of the game where it’s required to be used to proceed for example. This design was disjointed compared to Doom’s more traditional linear grade of escalating weaponry with the singular focus of causing more damage to the thing yer pointing the gun at with minor gameplay variances applied. It also hindered your ability to quickly change weapons during a fight, since not all weapons were necessarily appropriate to whatever situation you were in.
But aside from the more cumbersome design, the actual mechanics of the guns weren’t as well implemented in HL2 either. Imma cull from Chris again and refer to kineasthetics, the way the games ‘feel’ while playing. In HL2, you’re arsenal just doesn’t pack the same punch as D3. I beat D3 on Nightmare using only the shotgun and machine gun because they were so effective. Now I can understand how that sounds like a flaw, but the punch these guns packed kept it from feeling monotonous. There was a much better sense of physical impact and power derived from Doom’s weaponry.
However in HL2, the weapons that had the best kinaesthetics in the entire game - the pulse rifle and crossbow - were also the weapons that held the least amount of ammo, ran through said ammo the quickest and whose ammo to find was the scarcest. Compare this to the MP, whose weapon spray and weak bullets make it almost completely ineffective, yet has by far the most plentiful ammo count and supplies. The game goes out of its way to actually remove kinaesthetic elements so you can focus on using the gravity gun. The problem is that - at it’s core - it’s still a shooter, leading to this dissonance in the mechanics that persists throughout the entire game.
In Conclusion:
I have to agree that HL2 is certainly more important to the medium as a whole by expanding the possibilities of what a videogame might be capable of, but in doing so, it sacrificed polished game mechanics for content variety, while Doom went in almost the exact opposite direction.
Now if that’s something that floats yer boat - and it appears for most people it is - good on ya. For me however, I feel videogames show the most potential when they focus on their interactive mechanics and use that to create narrative rather than extraneous plots. Hell, one of the most powerful stories ever told in any videogame was Missile Command from 1980. But while neither Doom nor Half Life created that level of synergy with their mechanics, the fact that Doom kept it’s focus on this aspect through simple design and a focused atmosphere, it ended up being a more entertaining endeavor and so, a better video…game.
1) Doom3 has a better story
Oh I'd love to see where he's going with this!
See here’s the thing about me: I’m old school. Atari 2600 old school, and given that perspective, the idea of the videogame as a delivery method for narrative is still new enough from my perspective to consider it a fad. In my eyes, a game’s story is a part of its presentation, in the same category as the graphics and audio. It’s nice if it’s well done, but it only has to be functional and provide sufficient context, so long as the gameplay is solid. It’s icing, not the cake.
I point this out so that you understand that I don’t apply as much respect for a videogame if it has a good plot with likable characters as most everyone else does. I remember the days when all that was needed was a text scroll or 1 page in the manual and I don’t think things have changed as much as we’d like to think they have. So when judging the story, I judge how it is told, because the interactive nature of the medium means that’s the most important aspect to take into consideration.
And in this regard Doom3 wins out.
Chris Franklin’s video on the Half Life series does a much better job explaining the storytelling flaws in those games than I ever could. Suffice it to say, while the plot in HL2 beats out anything in the Doom series by any standard, its integration into the game isn’t as successful. Doom, on the other hand, forgoes a complex narrative in favor of - as noted by Tycho of Penny Arcade - atmosphere out the asshole. The plot is practically retro chic: All hell has literally broken loose, are you a bad enough dude to survive it? There’s a stupid mad scientist that serves as the ‘human face’ antagonist, but it’s all so much background noise. The games real narrative focus is on your character and making him feel as alone and outnumbered as possible. Every objective you’re given in the game is in service to this story rather than the plot and it’s this consistent tone along with the phenomenal atmosphere the game exudes that creates a far more visceral and emotionally powerful experience.
2) Doom3 plays better.
Doom3 and Half Life 2 are shooters because that’s what you do in the games. You point your cursor at things you want to die and then press the fire button until said thing is dead and then move on to the next thing to kill. It’s incredibly integral to shooters that this core mechanic of shoot’n thangs is very refined since there’s not a lot of gameplay variety to distract the player…and Doom3 does it better.
HL2 has ‘sets’ of weapons with a ‘minor’ and ‘major’ weapon applied to each set, with some sets having implicit context sensitive actions. The rocket launcher only has ammo provided for it in sections of the game where it’s required to be used to proceed for example. This design was disjointed compared to Doom’s more traditional linear grade of escalating weaponry with the singular focus of causing more damage to the thing yer pointing the gun at with minor gameplay variances applied. It also hindered your ability to quickly change weapons during a fight, since not all weapons were necessarily appropriate to whatever situation you were in.
But aside from the more cumbersome design, the actual mechanics of the guns weren’t as well implemented in HL2 either. Imma cull from Chris again and refer to kineasthetics, the way the games ‘feel’ while playing. In HL2, you’re arsenal just doesn’t pack the same punch as D3. I beat D3 on Nightmare using only the shotgun and machine gun because they were so effective. Now I can understand how that sounds like a flaw, but the punch these guns packed kept it from feeling monotonous. There was a much better sense of physical impact and power derived from Doom’s weaponry.
However in HL2, the weapons that had the best kinaesthetics in the entire game - the pulse rifle and crossbow - were also the weapons that held the least amount of ammo, ran through said ammo the quickest and whose ammo to find was the scarcest. Compare this to the MP, whose weapon spray and weak bullets make it almost completely ineffective, yet has by far the most plentiful ammo count and supplies. The game goes out of its way to actually remove kinaesthetic elements so you can focus on using the gravity gun. The problem is that - at it’s core - it’s still a shooter, leading to this dissonance in the mechanics that persists throughout the entire game.
In Conclusion:
I have to agree that HL2 is certainly more important to the medium as a whole by expanding the possibilities of what a videogame might be capable of, but in doing so, it sacrificed polished game mechanics for content variety, while Doom went in almost the exact opposite direction.
Now if that’s something that floats yer boat - and it appears for most people it is - good on ya. For me however, I feel videogames show the most potential when they focus on their interactive mechanics and use that to create narrative rather than extraneous plots. Hell, one of the most powerful stories ever told in any videogame was Missile Command from 1980. But while neither Doom nor Half Life created that level of synergy with their mechanics, the fact that Doom kept it’s focus on this aspect through simple design and a focused atmosphere, it ended up being a more entertaining endeavor and so, a better video…game.
No comments:
Post a Comment