What did Half-Life teach you? (Half-Life)
Let's just talk about what we fans have learned from Half-Life.What did HL teach me? Under unforeseen circumstances, grab a tire iron and a pistol, and silently climb out of these circumstances!
He taught (oddly enough, given that, in general, CL is a linear game) not to get lost in games, to boldly and carefully explore every nook and cranny, nook and passage. // useful in Silent Hill
Take a regular vacuum cleaner, put it on your back and shoot from a hose with a blue beam
Well, in general, she does not teach us anything, but it improves reaction and helps to kill time cheerfully)) Especially with friends
Thanks to half-life, I realized that the most important thing in games is not the graphics, but the plot
Gonarch
Well, no. In games, the main thing is the gameplay. And about the plot in shooters, Carmack rightly said: it should be, but it is not the main part. Half-Life would hardly be remembered so often now if the shootings in it were not interesting.
And about the plot in shooters, Carmack rightly said: it should be, but it is not the main part.
Just don't get it wrong. Carmack said he was completely irrelevant. And he was wrong.
But I agree with your specific wording. If the plot begins to dominate in the game, if it is played for the sake of the plot, then this is no longer a game by and large.
xDDGx
Carmack said he was completely irrelevant .
Here is his quote from the Wiki: “Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important. "
It seems that I messed up with the meaning slightly, but the fact that "is absolutely not important" - this is not exactly said here.
Everything is important in the game: gameplay, plot and presentation, general design, etc. But if, say, an interesting addictive gameplay can more than compensate for a rather weak plot, then a game with an excellent plot and mediocre gameplay will be interesting only once. However, to all appearances, many players go through the games once: they bought another novelty, ran on easy or on normal in one night or a couple of evenings, and immediately deleted it. With this approach, of course, the plot will be the most important.
Here is his quote from the Wiki: “Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important. "
It seems that I messed up with the meaning slightly, but the fact that "is absolutely not important" - this is not exactly said here.
Well, yes, it says "he should be there, but his role is not that important."
Half-Life would hardly be remembered so often now, if the shootings in it were not interesting
If the plot begins to dominate in the game, if it is played for the sake of the plot, then this is no longer a game by and large
Yes, there are quite a few games in which they put too much of the effort into the plot, not paying enough attention to the rest, they turned out to be boring and were forgotten. Some games, recognized as masterpieces and legends, I simply cannot bring myself to pass, I cannot force to play because of the dull gameplay. At the same time, I would not say “the main thing is this†at all. It depends on the genre and everything. For example, in the new Bioshock, the gameplay is rather beaten and does not shine, does not sparkle (especially under the last third), but the plot is the main locomotive, and the gameplay, which is important, does not pull back. And in HL2, the plot follows itself in a straight line of locations, and at the end does not change its direction, there are no twists or ... well, in general, the plot there is a vector for gameplay and not an end in itself (as it seems to me). And both games are shooters.
At the same time, the gameplay of the first Dead Space is at first pretty spoiled by inconvenient controls, and due to the relative scarcity of the arsenal (which is dictated by the genre - Survival horror implies that GG is not ready for the upcoming tests and it should be hard for him) is also not bright at all, oh You don’t think about the plot (in my opinion, it is very smeared over the trilogy), but ATMOSPHERE pushes forward (and it, um, makes you huddle in the corners).
There is nothing unanimously important, I think so. Being an old game, HL fully (and even more) justifies expectations in terms of gameplay (after all, in old games it was often better), in dynamics, and in design, including the plot in it - although the game was released just is the same age as Carmack's words - is that pleasant addition, a spice that prevents the game from aging in the same way as Quakes or other contemporary shooters. I, if anything, I mean that in the game you do not lose the thread of what is happening in the gameplay, the plot justifies the actions of the player, and such games are much more pleasant for me to play.
Being an old game, HL fully (and even more) meets expectations in terms of gameplay (after all, in old games it was often better)
IMHO, among the shooters of the nineties there are no equal (including gameplay) Half-Life and Unreal, not like the best.
I'll just say one word: replayability.
Right you are (c). Having heard about Half-Life as a very linear game, I didn't even expect it to be replayable. A rich balanced arsenal, interesting opponents, carefully designed levels do their job (as in the underrated Doom 3, since we remember other games as well).
Eh, if Half-Life was also a "semi-sandbox" like FarCry ...
The fact that the military can, if something happens, try not to save, but to destroy those involved in the incident.