(Apologies in advance if this gets confusing; I've got a massive headache right now that painkillers aren't even scratching, so my thoughts are a bit muddled, but I've been thinking about this for days, and it's bothering me a lot)
(Also, here, have some game covers so this doesn't seem like a wall of text)
EDIT: Okay, so, I'm drastically editing this OP now that I'm feeling far less ill. It should make more sense, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
As I stumble across more "I'm getting a new PC! What games should I get?" thread, I find myself increasingly capable of predicting which games will be on the list. Valve's going to make an appearance, primarily with Team Fortress 2, Portal 2, and DOTA 2. We'll see Blizzard as well, primarily with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. MMOs might get mentioned--usually Guild Wars 2, but occasionally someone will mention something like The Old Republic or EVE. Then we'll have the other usual suspects, the Terrarias, the Minecrafts, the Bindings of Isaacs, and so on and so forth. People will mention indie puzzlers and platformers as well.
My Steam friends list is littered with these people as well. The most-played game, last I checked, was Dota 2, followed closely by Team Fortress 2. When someone pops on Steam, more often than not, it's to play these games or the latest console port.
This has me feeling somewhat disconnected from the average PC gamer right now.
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.
There's this... kind of game, I've been discovering the past four years. It's a kind I really like. I don't really know how to put it in the right terms, as my first draft of this OP has convinced me, so let me try to express an era instead: PC-specific single-player games. I'm talking about the kind of games you see in the pictures of this post. I'm talking about STALKER and Thief, The Witcher and Homeworld. It's not about single-player-only games--after all, Age of Empires had multiplayer--it's more about games that seem to have put all their meat in the multiplayer, with skimpy pickings for a campaign that's little more than an ineffective training tool.
Knowing STALKER's becoming the F2P Survarium is like something out of a nightmare--System Shock 2 aside, it's my favorite game.
Looking at recent Kickstarters, we've seen a resurgence in... CRPGs. That's really about it. There are two interesting space sims that have recently been Kickstarted (Elite and Star Citizen), but Chris Roberts' efforts seem focused on multiplayer. 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.
Games have become increasingly Pavlovian, increasingly gamey. As I'm zipping through Far Cry 3, I'm finding that, much like Far Cry 2, the game's at its worst when it's trying to be a game. It's all about giving points, unlocking journal entries, lots of padding, and this continual feeling of artificiality. Most of these console ports seem to be games rather than... whatever STALKER was. When playing that, allow myself to be immersed in a fictitious reality. I react to that world like it's a real space. I do the same thing with games like STALKER and System Shock 2.
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.
The play style isn't always as overt as XP, though--Valve and Blizzard have practically made player conditioning their raison d'etre. It's not the kind of thing people did with these older games I've been playing.
Games feel like they're moving towards this connected, online, microtransacted future. The campaigns--which are rarely, if ever, well-written--last shortly and do ridiculous stuff like murdering me because I was supposed to enter X event while standing, and I chose to crouch (HI, BATTLEFIELD 3, YOU STEAMING SHITBUCKET). Or the games evoke a nostalgia for a past I never had. I don't care about the latest gimmicky 2D platformer. The puzzle games are interesting, but they just don't grip me in quite the same way. Something's missing, and that's the thing I want the most. I don't know what to call it. I can take pokes and stabs and try to tell you what it is and why it compels me, but I'm not sure I'll ever do a good job.
Most games I get are designed for consoles. Even Dishonored, which is about as PC as a game gets these days, did it wrong. During playtesting, they discovered that players, if they were told they couldn't go upstairs, wouldn't try to go upstairs. And older PC game would have encouraged that, but in Dishonored's case, they simply presented options for people too used to games being gamey for that to matter. There's something about... this sense of classic discovery that I'm finding in everything from Age of Empires (the current classic I'm playing) to No One Lives Forever (which I just found in a thrift store for $2.48 ).
It's like I'm being told everything, like I'm presented every option. Rarely are there consequences to my actions, other ways to do things, or... just... this sense of "this game world is a world--treat it as you see fit." In Age of Empires, there are multiple ways to win various maps. In so many of the games I'm playing, if it's not a multiplayer experience, it's a "Here, I am explicitly presenting you with all possible options" sort of thing. Far Cry 3 is the most liberating game I've played in ages in that regard... and it's still not quite right.
But it feels like nobody really wants that.
For so many people, games are little more than online sports. In this very thread, I H8 Memes has posted a pic showing that most of his friends play DOTA 2 (a staggering 1088 cumulative hours in two weeks).
For the rest, it seems to be about those lizard brain poking activies.
There are a handful of exceptions, like Amnesia, but that game's so binary. You hide or you run. If you don't, you die. It's not like there's that System Shockish feeling of uncertainty where you wonder if two rounds from your pistol is enough to take out the next monster. There's no real sense of gambling. Amnesia is like Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth... except less. There's no real way for me, as a player, to push the game systems, poke and see what I can or can't do.
Black Mesa is one of the better experiences I've had with this in recent times. I'd go "hm. Can I do that? HOLY SHIT! I CAN!" It was an exhilirating feeling. It was awesome to try to take on a handful of guys with just a bit of ammo and less than twenty health, or to see if I could lure them into a trap with a well-timed explosion. There was just so much more freedom to try and do things, despite the fact that it was a linear, scripted video game.
At times, I feel like people think all PC gaming has to offer is better graphics. For me, it's not about graphics. If it was, I wouldn't be playing all these old games. I wouldn't be actively seeking out more. I've never played Thief II, but after Thief, there's no way in hell I won't be playing it. Can't wait to get started on the Hitman games either.
I guess you could say it's about a different kind of fun, one that seems to be missing more and more in video games.
Marc LeBlanc, ex-Looking Glass guy if I remember right, has this cool site about different kinds of fun/satisfaction people get out of games. He argues that there are eight basic kinds of fun in games. Of these, I guess you could say I feel people are more interested in Fellowship, Submission, and Sensation. I, for my part, derive more fun from Expression, Discovery, Challenge, Fantasy (immersion). I'd say Narrative too, but few game writers seem competent enough to write something worthy of narrative enjoyment.
I just want a different kind of fun out of video games than it seems most people do. I feel like few people are encouraging others to play the kind of games that facilitate this kind of fun. I feel like few people are interested in making the kind of games that facilitate this kind of fun (because, let's face it, getting people addicted to your game is a lot easier than designing a good game). This is why I'm bummed.
So... what? Am I a member of a dying breed? Are people just not interested in the kind of games I like anymore? If they are... what can we do about it? Is there some way to encourage people to try focusing on these kinds of experiences?
(Also, here, have some game covers so this doesn't seem like a wall of text)
EDIT: Okay, so, I'm drastically editing this OP now that I'm feeling far less ill. It should make more sense, regardless of whether you agree with it or not.
As I stumble across more "I'm getting a new PC! What games should I get?" thread, I find myself increasingly capable of predicting which games will be on the list. Valve's going to make an appearance, primarily with Team Fortress 2, Portal 2, and DOTA 2. We'll see Blizzard as well, primarily with Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3. MMOs might get mentioned--usually Guild Wars 2, but occasionally someone will mention something like The Old Republic or EVE. Then we'll have the other usual suspects, the Terrarias, the Minecrafts, the Bindings of Isaacs, and so on and so forth. People will mention indie puzzlers and platformers as well.
My Steam friends list is littered with these people as well. The most-played game, last I checked, was Dota 2, followed closely by Team Fortress 2. When someone pops on Steam, more often than not, it's to play these games or the latest console port.
This has me feeling somewhat disconnected from the average PC gamer right now.
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.
There's this... kind of game, I've been discovering the past four years. It's a kind I really like. I don't really know how to put it in the right terms, as my first draft of this OP has convinced me, so let me try to express an era instead: PC-specific single-player games. I'm talking about the kind of games you see in the pictures of this post. I'm talking about STALKER and Thief, The Witcher and Homeworld. It's not about single-player-only games--after all, Age of Empires had multiplayer--it's more about games that seem to have put all their meat in the multiplayer, with skimpy pickings for a campaign that's little more than an ineffective training tool.
Knowing STALKER's becoming the F2P Survarium is like something out of a nightmare--System Shock 2 aside, it's my favorite game.
Looking at recent Kickstarters, we've seen a resurgence in... CRPGs. That's really about it. There are two interesting space sims that have recently been Kickstarted (Elite and Star Citizen), but Chris Roberts' efforts seem focused on multiplayer. 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.
Games have become increasingly Pavlovian, increasingly gamey. As I'm zipping through Far Cry 3, I'm finding that, much like Far Cry 2, the game's at its worst when it's trying to be a game. It's all about giving points, unlocking journal entries, lots of padding, and this continual feeling of artificiality. Most of these console ports seem to be games rather than... whatever STALKER was. When playing that, allow myself to be immersed in a fictitious reality. I react to that world like it's a real space. I do the same thing with games like STALKER and System Shock 2.
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.
The play style isn't always as overt as XP, though--Valve and Blizzard have practically made player conditioning their raison d'etre. It's not the kind of thing people did with these older games I've been playing.
Games feel like they're moving towards this connected, online, microtransacted future. The campaigns--which are rarely, if ever, well-written--last shortly and do ridiculous stuff like murdering me because I was supposed to enter X event while standing, and I chose to crouch (HI, BATTLEFIELD 3, YOU STEAMING SHITBUCKET). Or the games evoke a nostalgia for a past I never had. I don't care about the latest gimmicky 2D platformer. The puzzle games are interesting, but they just don't grip me in quite the same way. Something's missing, and that's the thing I want the most. I don't know what to call it. I can take pokes and stabs and try to tell you what it is and why it compels me, but I'm not sure I'll ever do a good job.
Most games I get are designed for consoles. Even Dishonored, which is about as PC as a game gets these days, did it wrong. During playtesting, they discovered that players, if they were told they couldn't go upstairs, wouldn't try to go upstairs. And older PC game would have encouraged that, but in Dishonored's case, they simply presented options for people too used to games being gamey for that to matter. There's something about... this sense of classic discovery that I'm finding in everything from Age of Empires (the current classic I'm playing) to No One Lives Forever (which I just found in a thrift store for $2.48 ).
It's like I'm being told everything, like I'm presented every option. Rarely are there consequences to my actions, other ways to do things, or... just... this sense of "this game world is a world--treat it as you see fit." In Age of Empires, there are multiple ways to win various maps. In so many of the games I'm playing, if it's not a multiplayer experience, it's a "Here, I am explicitly presenting you with all possible options" sort of thing. Far Cry 3 is the most liberating game I've played in ages in that regard... and it's still not quite right.
But it feels like nobody really wants that.
For so many people, games are little more than online sports. In this very thread, I H8 Memes has posted a pic showing that most of his friends play DOTA 2 (a staggering 1088 cumulative hours in two weeks).
For the rest, it seems to be about those lizard brain poking activies.
There are a handful of exceptions, like Amnesia, but that game's so binary. You hide or you run. If you don't, you die. It's not like there's that System Shockish feeling of uncertainty where you wonder if two rounds from your pistol is enough to take out the next monster. There's no real sense of gambling. Amnesia is like Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth... except less. There's no real way for me, as a player, to push the game systems, poke and see what I can or can't do.
Black Mesa is one of the better experiences I've had with this in recent times. I'd go "hm. Can I do that? HOLY SHIT! I CAN!" It was an exhilirating feeling. It was awesome to try to take on a handful of guys with just a bit of ammo and less than twenty health, or to see if I could lure them into a trap with a well-timed explosion. There was just so much more freedom to try and do things, despite the fact that it was a linear, scripted video game.
At times, I feel like people think all PC gaming has to offer is better graphics. For me, it's not about graphics. If it was, I wouldn't be playing all these old games. I wouldn't be actively seeking out more. I've never played Thief II, but after Thief, there's no way in hell I won't be playing it. Can't wait to get started on the Hitman games either.
I guess you could say it's about a different kind of fun, one that seems to be missing more and more in video games.
Marc LeBlanc, ex-Looking Glass guy if I remember right, has this cool site about different kinds of fun/satisfaction people get out of games. He argues that there are eight basic kinds of fun in games. Of these, I guess you could say I feel people are more interested in Fellowship, Submission, and Sensation. I, for my part, derive more fun from Expression, Discovery, Challenge, Fantasy (immersion). I'd say Narrative too, but few game writers seem competent enough to write something worthy of narrative enjoyment.
I just want a different kind of fun out of video games than it seems most people do. I feel like few people are encouraging others to play the kind of games that facilitate this kind of fun. I feel like few people are interested in making the kind of games that facilitate this kind of fun (because, let's face it, getting people addicted to your game is a lot easier than designing a good game). This is why I'm bummed.
So... what? Am I a member of a dying breed? Are people just not interested in the kind of games I like anymore? If they are... what can we do about it? Is there some way to encourage people to try focusing on these kinds of experiences?