Support NeoGAF

[sp3000]

I'm just picking this one point out of the huge post, but I can at least answer that one. X³: Albion Prelude was out last year, and X Rebirth is set for 2013.

Neither of those X game's are space simulations, in the same way EVE is not one. About 10 percent of the gameplay is focused on space battles, while the other 90 percent is empire mangement and trading.

 

[lumzi23]

I am new to PC gaming and in general I have only experienced a handful of multiplayer games so maybe that's why I am hankering for more.

As for a lot of the games you mentioned or seem to mention, is that they seem to be all about tension (or outright fear), excessive amounts of stealth and are either rather challenging or even hard as nails. I don't mind immersion and discovery if they don't involve me crawling through some dank dungeon or sewer.

Words like immersion, exploration, narrative and discovery are all well and good, so long as they don't all turn out to be the same creeping through the dark environment thing we seem to get too often.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

Some genres are unlikely to be prominent again soon, if ever.

But, honestly, as long as developers have an avenue to develop and sell them and are successful enough to keep making them I'm not sure I care that much.

I don't care if a Paradox game winds up on the cover of Game Informer, I just care that enough people keep buying them to make it possible.

 

[Almighty]

Nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses aside, the landscape back in the 90's was different. These aforementioned genres were prominently listed and exposed at developers events, front covers of magazines, GOTY accolades, publishers' marquee titles. They aren't any longer.


I feel like I have to constantly repeat myself. It's not about sales or the marketplace. It's not about success. It's about visiblity, recognition, prominence, exposure, whatever, by the larger gaming industry, marketing and media.
- System Shock 2 wasn't niche in that in many, many magazines (European at least) covered and lauded the game before and after release, it had a large presence on store shelves for a long time, and it was being discussed at industry events. It also received lots of GOTY awards.
- Homeworld was a flagship title by Sierra and even won PC game of the year at IGN and PC Gamer. It resulted in Barking Dog Studios doing a highly anticipated expansion and a later sequel.
- Despite Grim Fandango bombing to hell and back, it still managed to get a lot of awards in its year of release, it was again highly covered by media and marketing, and it influenced much of the industry for good and bad. Useless anecdote incoming: Even my non-gaming friend at the time picked it up thanks to its high visibility.


I still haven't seen a good argument that disproves that my listed genres are no longer as prominent as they used to be. At least you have to agree that they no longer retain their marquee position as they once used to, so I don't know what you're talking about, aside from mod fellatio.

Eh even though I agree with you that PC gaming(and certain genres) are not front page news like they used to be I disagree that it is a big deal. To be honest from where I am sitting Stumpokapow is making a strong argument that you really haven't addressed that sales are better for most now then they were back in the day. While I would also love it if PC exclusives were front page news everywhere. As it stands right now I would take good sales over that any day. Better chance of me getting a sequel that way. Compared to if I had a well known critically acclaimed flop like Grim Fandango.

Anyway as to the OP well I disagree quite a bit. PC gaming is better right now then it has been in 10 or so years. If you think PC gaming is homogenous now then you either forgot or didn't game in the 2000's when PC gaming was RTSs or FPSs. Really that decade was probably the closest PC gaming has been to death. Anyway my point is you can't expect PC gaming to have just recovered from the better part of a decade long sickness and be back in top shape. A lot of these old genres people long for that have been dead during that time are starting to come back and personally I am sure that we will see games in the vein of System Shock and No One Lives Forever in the future.

 

[DocSeuss]

haha I don't get why everyone's so upset about this thread, although I don't agree with everyting that's been said I can totally understand the OP

It feels like "oh my god, OP prefers a different kind of game, so he totally hates the games I like!"

Weird reaction.

I enjoy A to Z, but I feel like X is in decline. People seem to think I should be happy with A-Y and Z.

What rational person wouldn't feel sad if their favorite kind of game wasn't getting made (or worse, older entries weren't even available for purchase)?

Anyway as to the OP well I disagree quite a bit. PC gaming is better right now then it has been in 10 or so years. If you think PC gaming is homogenous now then you either forgot or didn't game in the 2000's when PC gaming was RTSs or FPSs. Really that decade was probably the closest PC gaming has been to death. Anyway my point is you can't expect PC gaming to have just recovered from the better part of a decade long sickness and be back in top shape. A lot of these old genres people long for that have been dead during that time are starting to come back and personally I am sure that we will see games in the vein of System Shock and No One Lives Forever in the future.

I feel like a LOT of people are making this argument, and... no offense, but it's kind of... not well thought out. It's not even applicable to the argument I've made.

Please, read what I'm saying.

Am I saying things are bad for PC gaming? No.
Am I saying that games are all the same? No.

What am I saying?

I am saying that while certain areas of PC gaming are exploding (such as online games, F2P games, puzzle and platformer types, high-quality console ports, CRPGs, Sierra-style Adventure Games, etc), the kind of games I find that appeal to me the most--ones that allow a great deal of expression through play and player discovery--seem to be left by the wayside.

I am talking about a specific subset of games. I am talking about a design philosophy. I am talking about a fucking mindset.

I am not talking about PC gaming as a whole.

For you, as a PC gamer, things are AMAZING. For me, as a PC gamer, things are pretty good, and games aren't treating me quite so stupidly... but the philosophy of fun I most greatly value is one that seems so absent in video games today.

Does this make sense?

One of the nice things about PC gaming is that if you feel like everyone else is missing the point, you can make your own game and share it with us.

Working on it. Would prefer collaborating with more people.

That's an incredibly closeminded way of looking at it.

If you can't inagine a game being creative without a mouse and a keyboard, I feel sorry for you.

I'd half-agreed with you if your argument was that the console market is much more closed off, but complaining on the gamepads is just sad.

It's just reality. Having fewer buttons and more imprecise controls is a constraint.

That's not close-minded any more than saying "X car cannot do as much as Y car because it's got a weaker engine/less torque/is closer to the ground."

 

[Lime]

Eh even though I agree with you that PC gaming(and certain genres) are not front page news like they used to be

Then you agree with my position. Thanks, because that's all I have been saying. Do you also agree that the larger gaming industry no longer focuses on these genres? If yes, you also agree with my position.

I disagree that it is a big deal.

Agree to disagree, but that is another discussion altogether and is not part of my main claim. Just to briefly touch upon this: There are some downsides to them not being prominent any longer. Note that I am not stating that the PC gaming landscape is overall worse today than it was 15 years, as I also stated on the previous page.

To be honest from where I am sitting Stumpokapow is making a strong argument that you really haven't addressed that sales are better for most now then they were back in the day.

Again, as I've stated a thousand times, sales are not part of my argument and they aren't needed to confirm that the state of affairs was different back then.

While I would also love it if PC exclusives were front page news everywhere, but as it is right now I would take good sales over that any day. Better chance of me getting a sequel then. Compared to if I had a well known critically acclaimed flop like Grim Fandango.

I guess we differ in that regard. I acknowledge that sales do matter and it is understandable that the industry have chosen to euthanize all of these genres if they didn't do sufficiently well. But nonetheless, I don't think that the genres themselves exclude good sales, as evidenced (thank god!) by Kickstarter popularity of the many cases I listed, so your argument does not hold up.

Also, I wouldn't mind if the industry gave more exposure to these genres so that non-invited consumers were more exposed and thus more inclined to try out or witness what gaming consists of. So there are benefits to making these genres "marquee", as such.

 

[trab pu kcip]

I enjoy A to Z, but I feel like X is in decline.

and that's where I totally agree with you.

 

[DocSeuss]

Your thread title is not, "isn't it sad that X genre isn't as prominent anymore? I'm pretty happy with most other stuff, though, yay." It's, "Does Anyone Else Feel Disconnected From The Modern PC Gamer?" So that's why you're getting the response you're getting. And the confused conversation where hard sales and visibility on enthusiast blogs is sort of irrelevant compared to this abstract feeling that maybe because Grim Fandango was on a magazine cover things were better for the genre then even though that game totally bombed and the genre hasn't been the same since.

But I do feel disconnected. I feel like everyone else is perfectly content that the design philosophy that resonates with me the most is also the most absent. They are pleased as punch at the multiplayer games or the gamey games (most grand strategy games mentioned here have players poring over a big map--kinda like a board game). These are wonderful experiences and I play them myself. However, I also value another kind of game, and I do not feel as though others do.

I feel no need to lament or express excitement about the status quo games--the ones everyone is playing. They're just a given. They're overwhelmingly prevalent. What about the not-so-prevalent stuff? That's what this thread is about.

Lime and Stump's conversation is running on a different tangent to my own (and fascinating to read). Please don't conflate the two discussions.

 

[Red Blaster]

I still haven't seen a good argument that disproves that my listed genres are no longer as prominent as they used to be. At least you have to agree that they no longer retain their marquee position as they once used to, so I don't know what you're talking about, aside from mod fellatio.

i don't agree or disagree because I don't know and I don't particularly care

i also didn't know stallion free was a mod; moreover it's neat how thinking a mod is making good points means you're fellating them

 

[Fudgepuppy]

It's just reality. Having fewer buttons and more imprecise controls is a constraint.

That's not close-minded any more than saying "X car cannot do as much as Y car because it's got a weaker engine/less torque/is closer to the ground."

Except that in real life everything comes natural, while you in games need to have a limited input for it to truly feel tactile.

A game like Arma never becomes first nature compared to a game like Mega-Man (to me anyway), as Mega Man conveys exactly what it needs to with its dimensions via taught input and rules of the gameplay-world.

Still a really close-minded and narrow concept since game-design is not finite. Some games need keyboards; most don't if the devs can make the gameplay tactile enough in a way that conveys the game's world and gameplay-rules.

If someone made a game where you had one button for your lungs, one for every limb and one for your eyelids, that would not in any way feel more natural than having two joysticks, a jump and interaction-button like in any traditional fps.

 

[Lime]

i don't agree or disagree because I don't know and I don't particularly care

What a weird motivation for participating in the thread. Why are you taking up a position by stating that "X is owning the thread", when you don't agree or disagree, have any knowledge on the matter, or even feel invested in the topic of the thread?

i also didn't know stallion free was a mod; moreover it's neat how thinking a mod is making good points means you're fellating them

You can't take a joke?

 

[Almighty]

I feel like a LOT of people are making this argument, and... no offense, but it's kind of... not well thought out. It's not even applicable to the argument I've made.

Please, read what I'm saying.

Am I saying things are bad for PC gaming? No.
Am I saying that games are all the same? No.

What am I saying?

I am saying that while certain areas of PC gaming are exploding (such as online games, F2P games, puzzle and platformer types, high-quality console ports, CRPGs, Sierra-style Adventure Games, etc), the kind of games I find that appeal to me the most--ones that allow a great deal of expression through play and player discovery--seem to be left by the wayside.

I am talking about a specific subset of games. I am talking about a design philosophy. I am talking about a fucking mindset.

I am not talking about PC gaming as a whole.

For you, as a PC gamer, things are AMAZING. For me, as a PC gamer, things are pretty good, and games aren't treating me quite so stupidly... but the philosophy of fun I most greatly value is one that seems so absent in video games today.

Does this make sense?

Yes I see what you are saying. What I am saying is there is a reason for why you have this problem. Really ask anyone who liked most of those genres you listed what they thought of PC gaming in 2005 and you would get the same answer you put in the OP. PC gaming was pretty much dead then and my point was is that after that dark period it is getting better every year. I expect in the future the games you like will make a comeback just like many other genre has as well.

Since that doesn't help you right now then yes sucks to be you that they don't make games you like. I was in that spot for a good chunk of the last decade so how does that saying go, "I know that feel, bro." Thankfully CRPG are starting to get a little comeback hopefully they will stick around.

 

[DocSeuss]

Except that in real life everything comes natural, while you in games need to have a limited input for it to truly feel tactile.

A game like Arma never becomes first nature compared to a game like Mega-Man (to me anyway), as Mega Man conveys exactly what it needs to with its dimensions via taught input and rules of the gameplay-world.

Still a really close-minded and narrow concept since game-design is not finite. Some games need keyboards; most don't if the devs can make the gameplay tactile enough in a way that conveys the game's world and gameplay-rules.

If someone made a game where you had one button for your lungs, one for every limb and one for your eyelids, that would not in any way feel more natural than having two joysticks, a jump and interaction-button like in any traditional fps.

ARMA, I've been told, becomes a lot more natural when you're using alternative things like head and eye-tracking software.

Most games would benefit tremendously from having a mouse, keyboard, and having players be closer to the screen (Far Cry 3's menus, for instance, aren't particularly good, because they're constrained to work on a controller).

Oh, I only mean to say that that line of discussion is coloring the tone of the thread, I don't mean to attribute it to you personally.

I guess it's understandable that you're frustrated about your niche not being the area that garners the most excitement. The summation of what all my posts are getting at is that complexity is not lost in the current market, that certain genres will always be cycling in and out of fashion so that's something we all have to cope with, and that the games you've singled out are actually the ones people on places like GAF are constantly lamenting about.

Your perspective reminds me a lot of Derrick's. I agree with your feelings on the games you love, but the way you articulate why you aren't interested in everything else is kind of hard for me to relate to.

I misunderstood you. My bad.

It's not just about complexity. If it was, I'd be a lot more focused on that argument. That's more Derrick's argument than mine. I'm okay with games not being necessarily complex or traditionally difficult--I'm more interested in them having a significant degree of systemic interaction in a way that empowers me, the player, to define my existence within the scope of the gameplay.

Yes I see what you are saying. What I am saying is there is a reason for why you have this problem. Really ask anyone who liked most of those genres you listed what they thought of PC gaming in 2005 and you would get the same answer you put in the OP. PC gaming was pretty much dead then and my point was is that after that dark period it is getting better every year. I expect in the future the games you like will make a comeback just like many other genre has as well.

Since that doesn't help you right now then yes sucks to be you that they don't make games you like. I was in that spot for a good chunk of the last decade, but thankfully CRPG are starting to get a little comeback hopefully they will stick around.

If and when they do come back, I'll be pretty exited. Sadly, the movers and shakers of the immersive sim in particular all have really nice jobs (Bethesda, Zenimax, Arkane, Irrational, Valve, Harmonix, bossman at Zynga, head of Junction Point). Guys like Ensemble (now Robot Entertainment) are focused more on F2P/mobile. So I feel like it might be a bit more challenging to resurrect those game types. I'm making my own efforts, but I'm just one guy, and the only game I've ever made was a text adventure.

 

[Red Blaster]

What a weird motivation for participating in the thread. Why are you taking up a position by stating that "X is owning the thread", when you don't agree or disagree, have any knowledge on the matter, or even feel invested in the topic of the thread?

pretty sure the topic of this thread is centered around DocSeuss' curious narrative on PC gaming and not "are Lime's absurdly specific genres from 1999 still marquee titles in the year 2013 based on his arbitrary definition of what marquee means";

You can't take a joke?

nope

 

[DocSeuss]

pretty sure the topic of this thread is centered around DocSeuss' curious narrative on PC gaming and not "are Lime's absurdly specific genres from 1999 still marquee titles in the year 2013 based on his arbitrary definition of what marquee means";



nope

How, exactly, is my narrative curious?

How is Lime wrong?

Marquee = stuff that's out there for everyone to see--billed as a reason to check something out. Right now, the marquee PC games are titles like Minecraft, Hawken, World of Warcraft, and Dota 2.

Yeah, I totally agree in wanting even more of that. Our difference is, I can play ARMA and Minecraft (heavily modded) or Paradox games to fulfill that urge, and I'm excited about the upcoming cycle of design for this next decade that the popularity of those games point to. MMOs are the genre that frustrates me in the same way you feel left behind as a fan of the genres in your OP, so I can relate on some level, even.

I haven't played ARMA, because I tried the competing sim and found the genre uncompelling. But that was a few years ago. I should try again.

How do you mod Minecraft to sate that urge?

I guess that's my real problem: some games dull the gnaw for a while, like Dishonored, but months later, it comes back, stronger than ever.

 

[shaowebb]

Couldn't make out what the OP said because it was being drowned out by the sound of my overflowing Steam library littered with a ton of titles that are on consoles, but bought for a fraction of the cost during sales and running at better resolutions.

Face it. PC's can make console game experiences better for a lot of things and they use the same controllers. Heck they can even receive patches smoothly or be fan patched if there are problems that studios refuse to resolve. Plus indie games thrive there where they go in debt trying to get enough money to release and stay on console services.

Theres no divisionary genre lines anymore between PC and consoles anymore so why try to worry about being disconnected with anyone. You simply have more kinds of gamers on your PC now is whats changing things.

 

[DocSeuss]

Couldn't make out what the OP said because it was being drowned out by the sound of my overflowing Steam library littered with a ton of titles that are on consoles, but bought for a fraction of the cost during sales and running at better resolutions.

Face it. PC's can make console game experiences better for a lot of things and they use the same controllers. Heck they can even receive patches smoothly or be fan patched if there are problems that studios refuse to resolve. Plus indie games thrive there where they go in debt trying to get enough money to release and stay on console services.

Theres no divisionary genre lines anymore between PC and consoles anymore so why try to worry about being disconnected with anyone. You simply have more kinds of gamers on your PC now is whats changing things.

That's too bad.

Your response is written to an OP that clearly isn't mine.

Having lots of games that release on consoles but are best on the PC is great. But it's not what I'm talking about--because those are still games designed with consoles in mind. They've got a different design philosophy than a lot of late-90s early-00s games.

I would like to play games designed with that philosophy again.

How the fuck are so many people reading my OP and getting "PC gaming is so terrible" from it?

PC gaming is great. It's also failing to offer a kind of game it used to offer and I want that back.

 

[ido]

I tend to agree with the OP and Lime on both accounts.

PC gaming, and gaming in general has changed significantly, and the types of games I enjoy the most are few and far between.

I do think a lot of my problem has to do with getting older, having children, and have virtually no time to play games. This leads me to only really want to invest the time that I do have into something that is very worthwhile for me, and not just "good".

 

[SapientWolf]

I feel like I have to constantly repeat myself. It's not about sales or the marketplace. It's not about success. It's about visiblity, recognition, prominence, exposure, whatever, by the larger gaming industry, marketing and media.

• System Shock 2 wasn't niche in that in many, many magazines (European at least) covered and lauded the game before and after release, it had a large presence on store shelves for a long time, and it was being discussed at industry events. It also received lots of GOTY awards.
• Homeworld was a flagship title by Sierra and even won PC game of the year at IGN and PC Gamer. It resulted in Barking Dog Studios doing a highly anticipated expansion and a later sequel.
• Despite Grim Fandango bombing to hell and back, it still managed to get a lot of awards in its year of release, it was again highly covered by media and marketing, and it influenced much of the industry for good and bad. Useless anecdote incoming: Even my non-gaming friend at the time picked it up thanks to its high visibility.

I still haven't seen a good argument that disproves that my listed genres are no longer as prominent as they used to be. At least you have to agree that they no longer retain their marquee position as they once used to, so I don't know what you're talking about, aside from mod fellatio.

That seems like a change in the original argument.

Wherever I look, whether it's on PC gaming websites or recommendation threads, Kickstarter projects, new mods coming out, or even on my Steam friends list, the kind of games being played are becoming increasingly homogenous. It's not to say that the games are becoming increasingly homogenous, just that players seem more likely to be playing a limited selection of game types, primarily multiplayer-oriented, free to play, indie puzzlers/platformers, or PC ports.

I'm having trouble parsing out a cogent argument out of all these statements. Some of which are contradictory.

 

[Lime]

That seems like a change in the original argument.


I'm having trouble parsing out a cogent argument out of all these statements. Some of which are contradictory.

I am not DocSeuss. I am another poster. Read the thread if you want to see what I have been saying.

 

[DocSeuss]

I have to throw this one out there on the whole "marquee" topic: System Shock 2 came out only months before the marquee game to end them all, The Sims. I'm surprised that hasn't come up in this thread. When I think of "marquee" games from that time, that's what I think of, not Deus Ex or SS2 which were gamer's games. Maybe the difference was that print media was viable enough that magazines serving that niche could sell enough to justify their existence?



ARMA is still a very difficult game to get into, not only because of how complex it is, but because of its quirks. The UI design is... odd. But worth it to experience stuff like Wasteland and DayZ.

For Minecraft, I've been into trying various modded servers. Nations at War was a cool invite-only server that I was on for a short time. MineZ was cool for a bit before the community made it insufferable. On the single player side, it's the same thing as Skyrim: Dream up what changes you need to get more out of the game, poke around, and you'll probably find a mod that does what you're looking for. For my tastes, TerraFirmaCraft does a lot of what I want.

I think it's because, like ARMA II

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 have absolutely awful UI problems. And Deus Ex has one of the most overwhelming intros ever, while System Shock 2 has one of the most irritating intros ever.

Greatest games of all time, to be sure, but they also never managed to have the instant appeal of Half-Life.

That seems like a change in the original argument.


I'm having trouble parsing out a cogent argument out of all these statements. Some of which are contradictory.

I know I'm not Lime, but if you'd like, I can tweak my phrasing of that initial claim to make more sense. It's like nobody read beyond that sentence and got to all the bits where I explained the differences in design philosophy and player compulsion.

 

[Almighty]

Then you agree with my position. Thanks, because that's all I have been saying. Do you also agree that the larger gaming industry no longer focuses on these genres? If yes, you also agree with my position.

Depending on the genre, but for some yeah I probably would agree with that as well.

Agree to disagree, but that is another discussion altogether and is not part of my main claim. Just to briefly touch upon this: There are some downsides to them not being prominent any longer. Note that I am not stating that the PC gaming landscape is overall worse today than it was 15 years, as I also stated on the previous page.

Fair enough.

I guess we differ in that regard. I acknowledge that sales do matter and it is understandable that the industry have chosen to euthanize all of these genres if they didn't do sufficiently well. But nonetheless, I don't think that the genres themselves exclude good sales, as evidenced (thank god!) by Kickstarter popularity of the many cases I listed, so your argument does not hold up.

I don't see how that invalidates my argument at all. I might be missing something, but my point was that I would take the game selling well over it being this kind of flagship marquee title that the industry and the press gushes over. No where did I say that some genres just don't sell enough and should be abandoned forever.

Now as for sales and being this "marquee" title. Yes they are not mutually exclusives things and I also agree that being an industry darling could help sales in theory as well. I guess my point is in a perfect world I would love to go to any gaming site, look at a magazine, or hear industry stars talking about how Crusader Kings II(a personal favorite of mine) is the best strategy game in a decade and you should buy it/what can we learn from it. The reality is that unless you have the marketing power of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, etc those days are gone. If they ever existed at all.

I guess what I am saying is that at the end of the day Crusader Kings II selling well enough for me to get a Crusader Kings III is all that is really important to me. If that means that none of these non-invited customers have ever heard of it then I would take it.

We might just have to agree to disagree on that. Though I also think you are really underestimating what Steam and/or word of mouth can do for a game in this age of interconnectivity.

 

[Almighty]

If and when they do come back, I'll be pretty exited. Sadly, the movers and shakers of the immersive sim in particular all have really nice jobs (Bethesda, Zenimax, Arkane, Irrational, Valve, Harmonix, bossman at Zynga, head of Junction Point). Guys like Ensemble (now Robot Entertainment) are focused more on F2P/mobile. So I feel like it might be a bit more challenging to resurrect those game types. I'm making my own efforts, but I'm just one guy, and the only game I've ever made was a text adventure.

I think it is just a matter of time. Right now it looks impossible sure, but I would of said the same thing about CRPGs prior to the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter. The industry ebbs and flows so people who are comfortable now maybe be looking for work tomorrow.

As coincidence as I was typing this I just read that Junction Point is gone. So maybe a Deus Ex spiritual successor kickstarter from Warren Spector is in the cards in the near future now?

 

[Lime]

I don't see how that invalidates my argument at all. I might be missing something, but my point was that I would take the game selling well over it being this kind of flagship marquee title that the industry and the press gushes over. No where did I say that some genres just don't sell enough and should be abandoned forever.

Ah, okay, then I might have misunderstood what you meant. Sorry about that.

Now as for sales and being this "marquee" title. Yes they are not mutually exclusives things and I also agree that being an industry darling could help sales in theory as well. I guess my point is in a perfect world I would love to go to any gaming site, look at a magazine, or hear industry stars talking about how Crusader Kings II(a personal favorite of mine) is the best strategy game in a decade and you should buy it/what can we learn from it.

I completely agree and that is what I am specifically "targetting", so to speak. Recognition, visibility, promotion, etc. of these PC-genres.

I guess what I am saying is that at the end of the day Crusader Kings II selling well enough for me to get a Crusader Kings III is all that is really important to me. If that means that none of these non-invited customers have ever heard of it then I would take it.

That's perfectly understandable. I'm probably arguing for having my cake and eating it too, i.e. that making the genres marquee and selling sufficiently are not mutually exclusive, but I could imagine that is a contentious claim to make.

The reality is that unless you have the marketing power of EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, etc those days are gone. If they ever existed at all.

I think that's the core issue that I have been trying to press. The 90's equivalent of today's Activision, Ubisoft, EA, etc. would promote and market these different PC genres. Lucasarts promoted Grim Fandango, Activision promoted Mechwarrior 2, Microprose Railroad Tycoon, Sierra Homeworld, EA Dungeon Keeper, and on and on. This also had the effect of media picking up on the genres, retail displaying them, industry events focusing on them, non-invited consumers playing them, and so on.

We might just have to agree to disagree on that. Though I also think you are really underestimating what Steam and word of mouth can do for a game in this age of interconnectivity.

As I stated on the previous page, I am not denying that the future looks much more optimistic than it did 3-5 years ago thanks to easy word-of-mouth provided by the Internet. Nor am I denying the presence and the incredibly positive consequences of digital distribution, Kickstarter, F2P business models, etc., which all enable many of the PC genres to blossom again.

So yeah, I think we in general agree about how the state of affairs of PC gaming was back in the 90's, how it declined in the middle 2000's, how the larger games industry ignores them, and how it is currently underway to blossom once again.

 

[trab pu kcip]

definitely one of the most well articulated, controversial and therefore also most interesting threads I saw in my little junior member existence here on neogaf so far.

 

[ido]

definitely one of the most well articulated, controversial and therefore also most interesting threads I saw in my little junior member existence here on neogaf so far.

Yes. I have enjoyed the shit out of this thread.

 

[trab pu kcip]

Yes. I have enjoyed the shit out of this thread.

glad I'm not the only one who thought so! I'm tempted to say "made my day"

 

[Almighty]

I think that's the core issue that I have been trying to press. The 90's equivalent of today's Activision, Ubisoft, EA, etc. would promote and market these different PC genres. Lucasarts promoted Grim Fandango, Activision promoted Mechwarrior 2, Microprose Railroad Tycoon, Sierra Homeworld, EA Dungeon Keeper, and on and on. This also had the effect of media picking up on the genres, retail displaying them, industry events focusing on them, non-invited consumers playing them, and so on.

Yeah I see you point. In this current PC market I just don't know of these multimillion marketing campaigns would be a net positive for PC gaming. As right now I think that would do more to harm the games then help. Not only do they have to make back development cost, but now the 10, 20, 30 million dollar marketing campaign as well.

So yeah, I think we in general agree about how the state of affairs of PC gaming was back in the 90's, how it declined in the middle 2000's, how the larger games industry ignores them, and how it is currently underway to blossom once again.

Yeah we agree more on this issue then we disagree it looks like.

 

[DocSeuss]

I think it is just a matter of time. Right now it looks impossible sure, but I would of said the same thing about CRPGs prior to the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter. The industry ebbs and flows so people who are comfortable now maybe be looking for work tomorrow.

As coincidence as I was typing this I just read that Junction Point is gone. So maybe a Deus Ex spiritual successor kickstarter from Warren Spector is in the cards in the near future now?

Yeah, if things blossom, cool.

It was weird to see Roberts Space Industries posting that so soon after I made my remark. Kinda sad. But it would be nice to see him Kickstart something--I just doubt he will, given how he seems to look a bit down on Deus Ex these days (complained about violence last year).

 

[Red Blaster]

How, exactly, is my narrative curious?

Your narrative is largely built around nebulous ideas like "gaminess" that are hard to quantify. You don't give concrete examples of what all those games you posted in the OP do well that made you like them. You even had to retcon your OP after numerous people had no idea what exactly you were getting at. Posting a series of boxarts of games from disparate genres between meandering prose in which you decry microtranscations and F2P games doesn't mean anything. Like this excerpt:

While I don't immerse myself in Age of Empires, a game I'm playing alongside Age of Empires Online, I find that I greatly prefer the former to the latter. AoEO is all about gentle lizard brain masturbation, and Age of Empires is just... Age of Empires. In AoEO, I don't leave the map until I've razed all the enemy's buildings, just to maximize my XP.

What in the hell does that mean. As someone who was never interested in Age of Empires compared to other strategy games I've not even the slightest clue what you're getting at. What specifically makes Age of Empires Online not as good as traditional Age of Empires?

How is Lime wrong?

Marquee = stuff that's out there for everyone to see--billed as a reason to check something out. Right now, the marquee PC games are titles like Minecraft, Hawken, World of Warcraft, and Dota 2.

I went back and read Lime's shit since it seems to have overtaken this thread and I don't think there's much point to his argument since he himself said the old guard was returning via the indie game movement and vehicles like Kickstarter and that he was more pointed towards how the gaming media affects mindshare. To wit; the gaming media has by far the least influence it's ever had due to indie games and Kickstarter.

 

[Lime]

Yeah I see you point. In this current PC market I just don't know of these multimillion marketing campaigns would be a net positive for PC gaming. As right now I think that would do more to harm the games then help. Not only do they have to make back development cost, but now the 10, 20, 30 million dollar marketing campaign as well.

Unfortunately you may be right. The landscape back then did allow for a cheaper positioning of titles as marquee titles, whereas in today's gaming landscape it would mean the certain death for e.g. a PC-centric simulation game.

Maybe the future of the gaming industry will become even more fragmented than it is today, where different industry powers will cater to smaller genres on smaller budgets, while other larger companies will continue their AAA philosophy by appealing to the lowest common denominator in order to recoup their budgets. A divide in media and retail segments will subsequently follow either trend, e.g. having a media outlet that promotes and covers the next Paradox strategy games, while others (IGN or whatever) focus on the next AAA shootfest.

 

[patapuf]

Unfortunately you may be right. The landscape back then did allow for a cheaper positioning of titles as marquee titles, whereas in today's gaming landscape it would mean the certain death for e.g. a PC-centric simulation game.

Maybe the future of the gaming industry will become even more fragmented than it is today, where different industry powers will cater to smaller genres on smaller budgets, while other larger companies will continue their AAA philosophy by appealing to the lowest common denominator in order to recoup their sales. A divide in media and retail segments will subsequently follow either trend, e.g. having a media outlet that promotes and covers the next Paradox strategy games, while others (IGN or whatever) focus on the next AAA shootfest.

Which is pretty much what happened to movies, music and even books to an extent. Slowly but surely mainstream and hardcore/enthusiast gaming are going separate ways.

What in the hell does that mean. As someone who was never interested in Age of Empires compared to other strategy games I've not even the slightest clue what you're getting at. What specifically makes Age of Empires Online not as good as traditional Age of Empires?

The F2P model resulted in a strategy game that was riddled with loot, microtransaction and grind in SP, also an unlock based MP (at least initially) wich means it's worthless as a competitive strategy game.

The original games and especially age of empire 2 had great historical SP campaigns and MP that still has a sizable community to this day - despite all official servers being shut down.

 

[Cpt Conifer]

I feel disconnected for entirely different reasons from the OP. A fictional world where I would be happy and un-alone is if Virtual On or Gundam Extreme Vs were out for whatever DD client, and was a massive esports sensation. People would put down the CounterStrike and DOTA point n' click bullshit and be playing that along with games like the Lost Planet series. Capcom would have been continually releasing new patches improving netcode, matchmaking, weapon balancing, and new maps for LP2 along with better observer abilities for the casters, and millions of PC gamers would be playing it.

Gamepads and other input devices would not be hated; there pretty much wouldn't be any vocal PC gamers left who believe the keyboard and mouse are the default scheme for the system, though of course I would not care if you used it.

 

[ArjanN]

I've realized that this isn't a "PC gaming isn't as good as it was" thread. This is a "I only like a small subset of genres and dismiss everything else as mass marketification" thread.

You refuse to give certain games a second look because they do not have a big enough budget or do not conform to your genre mold (which, by the way, is at odds with you declaring current PC games as "homogenous").

Pretty much. There's plenty of great games out there if you're willing to give them a chance.

 

[faceless007]

I think that's the core issue that I have been trying to press. The 90's equivalent of today's Activision, Ubisoft, EA, etc. would promote and market these different PC genres. Lucasarts promoted Grim Fandango, Activision promoted Mechwarrior 2, Microprose Railroad Tycoon, Sierra Homeworld, EA Dungeon Keeper, and on and on. This also had the effect of media picking up on the genres, retail displaying them, industry events focusing on them, non-invited consumers playing them, and so on.

I'd submit that one of the factors going into this perception of how things have changed has a lot to do with how gamers have shifted in the way they consume advertising. It's not just the industry's focus on PCs vs. consoles has changed, it's that marketing itself has changed. I might be projecting a little too much of my own history here, but to me it seems like a lot of the way we consumed industry news and promotion in the '90s was through print magazines like PC Gamer and online gamer-centric websites that focused heavily on previews and pre-release materials. If we read a good preview of a game and saw a lot of print ads for it, that was basically what counted as a big promotional push, and I feel like one of the reasons it seems like Grim Fandango or System Shock 2 got "marquee" promotion is because, for the time, they did. Even for the "big" PC publishers at the time, that was sufficient marketing to get a buzz going and create awareness in the community. That's certainly the primary way I found out about games like Thief and Descent: Freespace that so appealed to me.

Today, gaming marketing is a far more mainstream and expensive affair with CGI trailers, primetime TV commercials, and Flash ads and backgrounds everywhere. The AAA industry needs to sell blitzes and barrages of noisy, loud, flashy ads in video form, and anything below that level doesn't have the advertising budget to compete. Print advertising and magazines are basically dead, so it feels like the more niche, ambitious titles get lost in the noise, and aren't advertised at all. Of course, they are, but in far cheaper and more targeted ways, and thus it feels like they're not getting as big a push. But they don't need to, because the Internet and word of mouth allows them to still get the word out and sell lots of digital copies, in many cases more than they would have sold as retail titles in the '90s.

In other words, it's all relative. A decade ago, the PC industry was highly defined by the titles and the publishers you mention, and thus they made up the bulk of the shelf space and promotional space. Today, the industry has broadened and adopted the blockbuster model, so titles need to sell far more copies and get more exposure than the '90s titles did, and with that comes changes in marketing too.

 

[Lime]

I'd submit that one of the factors going into this perception of how things have changed has a lot to do with how gamers have shifted in the way they consume advertising. It's not just the industry's focus on PCs vs. consoles has changed, it's that marketing itself has changed. I might be projecting a little too much of my own history here, but to me it seems like a lot of the way we consumed industry news and promotion in the '90s was through print magazines like PC Gamer and online gamer-centric websites that focused heavily on previews and pre-release materials. If we read a good preview of a game and saw a lot of print ads for it, that was basically what counted as a big promotional push, and I feel like one of the reasons it seems like Grim Fandango or System Shock 2 got "marquee" promotion is because, for the time, they did. Even for the "big" PC publishers at the time, that was sufficient marketing to get a buzz going and create awareness in the community. That's certainly the primary way I found out about games like Thief and Descent: Freespace that so appealed to me.

Today, gaming marketing is a far more mainstream and expensive affair with CGI trailers, primetime TV commercials, and Flash ads and backgrounds everywhere. The AAA industry needs to sell blitzes and barrages of noisy, loud, flashy ads in video form, and anything below that level doesn't have the advertising budget to compete. Print advertising and magazines are basically dead, so it feels like the more niche, ambitious titles get lost in the noise, and aren't advertised at all. Of course, they are, but in far cheaper and more targeted ways, and thus it feels like they're not getting as big a push. But they don't need to, because the Internet and word of mouth allows them to still get the word out and sell lots of digital copies, in many cases more than they would have sold as retail titles in the '90s.

In other words, it's all relative. A decade ago, the PC industry was highly defined by the titles and the publishers you mention, and thus they made up the bulk of the shelf space and promotional space. Today, the industry has broadened and adopted the blockbuster model, so titles need to sell far more copies and get more exposure than the '90s titles did, and with that comes changes in marketing too.

I think faceless007 pretty much made sure that I have nothing more to say. Thanks for that great and informative post.

 

[DocSeuss]

Pretty much. There's plenty of great games out there if you're willing to give them a chance.

I hate it when people don't read the OP.

Or the subsequent posts that make it abundantly clear I like and play lots of games.

I'm really frustrated with this "why can't you just open your mind and enjoy other things?" crap. I do enjoy other things! I just prefer this thing (as described in the OP) and feel like everyone from press to fellow gamers to developers aren't particularly interested in it.

 

[Sciz]

Planetary Annihilation, one of the few non-CRPG Kickstarters out there, was originally not going to have a campaign at all. Even though they're planning on one now, it's clear that single player was never the game's focus.

The specific reason cited for PA not having a traditional campaign is that campaigns are where most of the time and money in RTS development goes, and Uber has relatively little of either. Consequently their development philosophy is based around creating flexible systems rather than raw volumes of one-off content.

 

[RedSwirl]

I feel disconnected for entirely different reasons from the OP. A fictional world where I would be happy and un-alone is if Virtual On or Gundam Extreme Vs were out for whatever DD client, and was a massive esports sensation. People would put down the CounterStrike and DOTA point n' click bullshit and be playing that along with games like the Lost Planet series. Capcom would have been continually releasing new patches improving netcode, matchmaking, weapon balancing, and new maps for LP2 along with better observer abilities for the casters, and millions of PC gamers would be playing it.

Gamepads and other input devices would not be hated; there pretty much wouldn't be any vocal PC gamers left who believe the keyboard and mouse are the default scheme for the system, though of course I would not care if you used it.

I'd be happen if this is how Japanese developers ended up treating fighting games. Imagine if Street Fighter got the same kind of support on Steam that DOTA2 get's.

 

[lumzi23]

I'd submit that one of the factors going into this perception of how things have changed has a lot to do with how gamers have shifted in the way they consume advertising. It's not just the industry's focus on PCs vs. consoles has changed, it's that marketing itself has changed. I might be projecting a little too much of my own history here, but to me it seems like a lot of the way we consumed industry news and promotion in the '90s was through print magazines like PC Gamer and online gamer-centric websites that focused heavily on previews and pre-release materials. If we read a good preview of a game and saw a lot of print ads for it, that was basically what counted as a big promotional push, and I feel like one of the reasons it seems like Grim Fandango or System Shock 2 got "marquee" promotion is because, for the time, they did. Even for the "big" PC publishers at the time, that was sufficient marketing to get a buzz going and create awareness in the community. That's certainly the primary way I found out about games like Thief and Descent: Freespace that so appealed to me.

Today, gaming marketing is a far more mainstream and expensive affair with CGI trailers, primetime TV commercials, and Flash ads and backgrounds everywhere. The AAA industry needs to sell blitzes and barrages of noisy, loud, flashy ads in video form, and anything below that level doesn't have the advertising budget to compete. Print advertising and magazines are basically dead, so it feels like the more niche, ambitious titles get lost in the noise, and aren't advertised at all. Of course, they are, but in far cheaper and more targeted ways, and thus it feels like they're not getting as big a push. But they don't need to, because the Internet and word of mouth allows them to still get the word out and sell lots of digital copies, in many cases more than they would have sold as retail titles in the '90s.

In other words, it's all relative. A decade ago, the PC industry was highly defined by the titles and the publishers you mention, and thus they made up the bulk of the shelf space and promotional space. Today, the industry has broadened and adopted the blockbuster model, so titles need to sell far more copies and get more exposure than the '90s titles did, and with that comes changes in marketing too.

Great post.

 

[RedSwirl]

I'd submit that one of the factors going into this perception of how things have changed has a lot to do with how gamers have shifted in the way they consume advertising. It's not just the industry's focus on PCs vs. consoles has changed, it's that marketing itself has changed. I might be projecting a little too much of my own history here, but to me it seems like a lot of the way we consumed industry news and promotion in the '90s was through print magazines like PC Gamer and online gamer-centric websites that focused heavily on previews and pre-release materials. If we read a good preview of a game and saw a lot of print ads for it, that was basically what counted as a big promotional push, and I feel like one of the reasons it seems like Grim Fandango or System Shock 2 got "marquee" promotion is because, for the time, they did. Even for the "big" PC publishers at the time, that was sufficient marketing to get a buzz going and create awareness in the community. That's certainly the primary way I found out about games like Thief and Descent: Freespace that so appealed to me.

Today, gaming marketing is a far more mainstream and expensive affair with CGI trailers, primetime TV commercials, and Flash ads and backgrounds everywhere. The AAA industry needs to sell blitzes and barrages of noisy, loud, flashy ads in video form, and anything below that level doesn't have the advertising budget to compete. Print advertising and magazines are basically dead, so it feels like the more niche, ambitious titles get lost in the noise, and aren't advertised at all. Of course, they are, but in far cheaper and more targeted ways, and thus it feels like they're not getting as big a push. But they don't need to, because the Internet and word of mouth allows them to still get the word out and sell lots of digital copies, in many cases more than they would have sold as retail titles in the '90s.

In other words, it's all relative. A decade ago, the PC industry was highly defined by the titles and the publishers you mention, and thus they made up the bulk of the shelf space and promotional space. Today, the industry has broadened and adopted the blockbuster model, so titles need to sell far more copies and get more exposure than the '90s titles did, and with that comes changes in marketing too.

But how does that account for the changes in the way these games are designed? I guess through this you could argue that even in their time, System Shock 2 and Deus Ex were niche relative to console games. I mean, people lost their shit when BioShock came out because they'd never played SS2, and most of today's Elder Scrolls fans probably got into the series at Oblivion (maybe Morrowind).

In that sense the ultimate answer to the OP's question is sales. Lowest common denominator. Publishers probably think that today's console gamer would be scared shitless of System Shock 2 and the original Deus Ex. I already posted earlier about the new data actually telling developers how many people are finishing their games. Hell, I was barely able to finish SS2 on normal mode. And once again, it didn't just happen to PC gaming, but to all gaming. Even Japanese console games during the 90's and early 2000's were more based on systemic discovery compared to today's games, and babysitted players a lot less.

 

[partyphone]

Eastern Europe has been pumping this stuff out with mixed results. Stalker/Metro 2033/Cryostasis. All pretty good. But then you have shit like Disciples 3 which was abysmal.

But it's not all doom and gloom. Indie games are getting bigger and more sophisticated and moving beyond the pixel art puzzle platformer. We already have games like Amnesia and Miasmata. Zeno Clash 2 is coming out soon. And games most people aren't aware of like Routine:

And then we have the kickstarter/crowd funded games like Grim Dawn and Star Citizen and a lot of others. Hopefully ones you've donated to.

 

[Grief.exe]

I think what OP is feeling is a general disconnect from gamers as a whole.

Gaming has transitioned to main stream, and with that change has brought about the lowest common denominator. People who don't enjoy thinking, but just like things essentially done for them.

Skyrim and Mass Effect 2 are great examples of this. Both games were stripped of most RPG elements.

There are still studios dedicated to us Valve, CD Projekt Red, Paradox, From, and various indie studios.

 

[partyphone]

Have you checked Hard Reset ? It has all the classic pc shooter mechanics with speed similar to Q3 (minus strafe/rocket jumping) plus real nice Blade Runnrish look.

Also it's 100% single player only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=488L20UXUKU

EVERYONE DO THIS. HARD RESET IS EXCELLENT.

 

[bigmit3737]

OP,I'm trying to understand what exactly you are looking for, can you go into more detail about what exactly you liked about Deus EX and System Shock 2.
I mean go into more details with specific examples, and is, "at this point of the game, when I figured out this method...or this part me feel like this...or when I discovered this...etc"

I'm understand what you are saying as a whole, but I'm a different type of gamer than you as I couldn't get into those games, because the gameplay mechanics or maybe the interface felt too cumbersome. I understand generally/intellectually why those games are considered masterpieces, but I could never connect with those games on an emotional level, because of the type of gamer I am at the moment. I am however, very curious what specifically made the games masterpieces to you, and I mean go into details and specifics.

My post is just out of general curiosity, and I don't have any judgments, as I understand we are very different types of gamers.

 

[DocSeuss]

I think what OP is feeling is a general disconnect from gamers as a whole.

Gaming has transitioned to main stream, and with that change has brought about the lowest common denominator. People who don't enjoy thinking, but just like things essentially done for them.

Skyrim and Mass Effect 2 are great examples of this. Both games were stripped of most RPG elements.

There are still studios dedicated to us Valve, CD Projekt Red, Paradox, From, and various indie studios.

Valve is all about making games based on behavioral conditioning, though. I'd hardly say they're dedicated to us. They make pretty much the opposite of what I'm interested in.

On the flip side of that, I'd argue that Skyrim isn't a great example of what you're talking about, but that's because Skyrim is ultimately a fork of gameplay evolution that stems from Ultima Underworld. If anything, it should be all about removing RPG mechanics and just simulating what those mechanics are abstractions of, simulation mechanics (example: Skyrim has better AI than previous Bethesda games, as far as I can tell). The game's not dumbed down, it's just getting closer to the Looking Glass ideal, which is a different kind of game.

OP,I'm trying to understand what exactly you are looking for, can you go into more detail about what exactly you liked about Deus EX and System Shock 2.
I mean go into more details with specific examples, and is, "at this point of the game, when I figured out this method...or this part me feel like this...or when I discovered this...etc"

I'm understand what you are saying as a whole, but I'm a different type of gamer than you as I couldn't get into those games, because the gameplay mechanics or maybe the interface felt too cumbersome. I understand generally/intellectually why those games are considered masterpieces, but I could never connect with those games on an emotional level, because of the type of gamer I am at the moment. I am however, very curious what specifically made the games masterpieces to you, and I mean go into details and specifics.

My post is just out of general curiosity, and I don't have any judgments, as I understand we are very different types of gamers.

I'm the kind of guy who tries to see what he can get the AI to do. I like to try new ways of approaching situations. I like to see whether or not a thing will work. For me, it's all about discovering new ways to approach a video game, and then expressing myself through my chosen interpretation of the game's design.

More games seem interested in focusing on multiplayer connectivity or a focus on overtly (Uncharted) or covertly (Valve games) making players experience an experience specifically designed to make them respond in some way.

I have a problem with these games because many times, I approach them differently.

Take, for instance, Battlefield 3. Campo and I were stealthing through it, and crouching, as I believe the game instructed. Then the game wanted me to stab a guy. Now, previously, I'd been shooting people with my silenced gun, but for whatever reason, the game forced me to sneak to the guy and stab him.

So I did, and I died.

I tried again, this time waiting for the prompt. I died again.

So I tried again, this time sneaking close as possible to the guy before stabbing.

Again, I died. It was instant.

I thought it was a bug.

Nope. Turns out I was still crouching, and I was supposed to stand.

Silly me, while the game has trained players at this point to crouch to avoid being noticed, it's important to stand now, despite the fact that you have to walk up behind a guy.

This is a particularly egregious example. Let's look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution. First off, I love DE:HR. I think it's a great game in a lot of respects. It has a few failings, some everyone talks about (boss fights), and others most people don't (stealth that borrows less from Thief and more from Metal Gear Solid).

But my problem is that Human Revolution has a RIGHT way to play. The developers seem to be all "well, yeah, Deus Ex is supposed to be versatile, so we'll put the options in, but it's REALLY a nonlethal stealth game."

So the game becomes structured. Human Revolution rewards more XP for nonlethal, non-detection players than others. It becames THE way to play, rather than A VERY CHALLENGING way to play. All the reward is sucked out of doing so.

Jamie Cheng from Klei (Mark of the Ninja) talks about the problems with this philosophy (people get less fun out of a game and play it more automatically) in a piece on Don't Starve on the Penny Arcade report.

What I want is the game where I figure out how to sneak around the soldiers who told me I had to pay them to get through a blocade, without the game (through level design or anything else) hinting that I had another way past. What I want is a game where I learn that overstuffing myself with loot is actually a really, really stupid idea.

What I want are the games that cause me to learn, not just about themselves, but about myself--and I don't want to do it in multiplayer.

The lizard-brain massagers and multiplayer experiences don't help that... but they seem to be the kind of games everyone's interested in making these days.

I think Skyrim and Minecraft appeal hugely because they're games that don't quite do this. They're more free, more player-empowering. They allow for more individual diversity.

That's why they're awesome.

EVERYONE DO THIS. HARD RESET IS EXCELLENT.

It's one of the few games where my first person senses were OFF. I kept bumping into things.

 

[trab pu kcip]

This is a particularly egregious example. Let's look at Deus Ex: Human Revolution. First off, I love DE:HR. I think it's a great game in a lot of respects. It has a few failings, some everyone talks about (boss fights), and others most people don't (stealth that borrows less from Thief and more from Metal Gear Solid).

But my problem is that Human Revolution has a RIGHT way to play. The developers seem to be all "well, yeah, Deus Ex is supposed to be versatile, so we'll put the options in, but it's REALLY a nonlethal stealth game."

So the game becomes structured. Human Revolution rewards more XP for nonlethal, non-detection players than others. It becames THE way to play, rather than A VERY CHALLENGING way to play. All the reward is sucked out of doing so.

that's why it really felt different than the original deus ex, I found myself stealthing all the time without having a doubt about it and it must be because the game manipulated my subconscious I think the delevolpers wanted to encourage this way of playing so their effort in creating all this different passages and paths throughout the levels would not go unnoticed. It's like "Oh look there's so much variety you can go THERE, THERE OR THERE!" but the first deus ex never felt like I had a certain number of options to choose from, it just felt like I made up my own options if that makes any sense?

 

[Remachinate]

that's why it really felt different than the original deus ex, I found myself stealthing all the time without having a doubt about it and it must be because the game manipulated my subconscious I think the delevolpers wanted to encourage this way of playing so their effort in creating all this different passages and paths throughout the levels would not go unnoticed. It's like "Oh look there's so much variety you can go THERE, THERE OR THERE!" but the first deus ex never felt like I had a certain number of options to choose from, it just felt like I made up my own options if that makes any sense?

I think I follow you. I definitely feel that the level design for Deus Ex was a lot more organic and less directed than HR. For example, the very first mission of HR (the warehouse) is representative of the design as a whole, in that the game lays out what your paths are, and you can choose among them. To infiltrate the warehouse, you can shoot up the enemies, sneak the long way around to the ground level door, or get to the ceiling vent. In contrast, the Castle Clinton level of the original Deus Ex has the vending machine entrance that you wouldn't even know about unless you took the time to explore the environment. I get the sense that this lack of freedom to make discoveries rather than being led through the level in modern games is what the OP is lamenting about.

 

[trab pu kcip]

I think I follow you. I definitely feel that the level design for Deus Ex was a lot more organic and less directed than HR. For example, the very first mission of HR (the warehouse) is representative of the design as a whole, in that the game lays out what your paths are, and you can choose among them. To infiltrate the warehouse, you can shoot up the enemies, sneak the long way around to the ground level door, or get to the ceiling vent. In contrast, the Castle Clinton level of the original Deus Ex has the vending machine entrance that you wouldn't even know about unless you took the time to explore the environment. I get the sense that this lack of freedom to make discoveries rather than being led through the level in modern games is what the OP is lamenting about.

exactly!