Unofficial Tex Murphy

POST 200!!!

I have to disagree with that last statement Cub... We still have Final Fantasy coming out with new Episodes, those are pretty decent games... Heavy Rain will be released soon, hopefully it's as good as it has looked so far... While it's a Kill 'Em and Smash 'Em style, God Of War still has a good storyline to it, I feel...

I agree with everything said there... Heavy Rain does look like it is going to be really good.

There are some pretty intuative games to day though. They don't all suck.

Take World of Goo for instance. Made on a shoe string budget by 2 guys. But one of the most intelligent puzzle games I have seen.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/puzzle/worl ... lt;title;0

Its right up there with the incredible machine as far as innovation goes.

Blizzard always puts out good games too. I have never seen a Blizzard game that does not meet the highest quality standards in terms of story, gameplay and innovation. They always try to bring something new to the table and set the standard. I don't know how many diablo clones came out after that game did.

I will be happy though once distributors do not have their claws in game making. Creativity will be able to shine again. I'm hoping that the recession in the industry is the start of that.

Bafitis wrote:

It's almost like no one wants to "Think" anymore... Games like Tex Murphy and others from 10-20 years ago made you Think about the solution... It made you think on how to get it done... True Gamers know what it's like to be stuck on a Puzzle for 2-3 days or longer... That's what gaming was all about... The adventure of being pulled into the game world where you felt like you had to get that puzzle completed... Games use to pull you in and for the time while you were playing it, you were in that world...
Ask a 15 year old to play Tex Murphy {UAKM or PD} today, I'm willing to bet he gives it back to you within 24-48 hours and you'll be lucky if he completed 3 game days{chapters}...

I remember one time I was stuck on a puzzle and I went to the MVA {motor vehicle administration} and I'm sitting there waiting for my number to be called... Well I was stuck on this puzzle for at least 2 days, I had hand written scraps laying around trying to figure it out and I'm just sitting there thinking in the MVA... All of a sudden it hits me on what the solution might be... I started talking to myself, It Can't Be That Simple, How Could I Have Missed That, along with a few other things referencing the game... I looked up and said a loudly, not quite a yell, "That's Gotta Be It"... Then I looked around and kind of mumbled, "I Gotta Go"...
I can't imagine what I must have looked like... lol

Life was so less serious back in the 90s...

I think you summed up exactly why adventure games are not popular today, without really realizing it.

Let me tell you a story. I used to play Unreal Tournament 2004. A lot. Eventually, after literally a couple hundred hours of play, I started to get bored so I started trying out some of the game's other modes.

I happened across a server called "RPG Invasion". Hmm... what's that? So I hopped on. Turns out, this server had a mod running on it. It would track your points and when you got enough you got awarded stat points. You could spend them on abilities to make your character better. And it remembered all your info when you logged off the server for the next time. Cool.

So I got really into this mod. The server probably had around 500 players, with around 100 regulars. I played literally hundreds of hours on this mod and I figured out nearly every little bit of strategy to being the best. At my peak, I was probably the second best player on the server. I could utterly dominate just about anyone. It was a combination of the depth of my strategies, map knowledge and insane amounts of practice. Here's a link to a strategy thread I started:

http://disastrousconsequences.com/dcfor ... /1488.page

So what is the point I'm trying to make? The games today require plenty of thinking. They just aren't the old puzzle solving games you remember. Many people dismiss online FPS games as "twitch-fests" and that's just lame. You not only need a ton of strategy but fast reflexes, timing and an ability to execute under pressure in order to win.

Read page 4 of that thread above, where I talk about "combos". I had that same "A HA!" moment you described when I realized the potential of combos in the game.

I think if you really look at games like Fallout 3 or World of Warcraft, you'll find that same level of strategy.

So, I think the games have changed, but the real "cream" of the games still have tons of depth. They require a different approach, but the depth and the requirement to think hard in order to win are definitely there, maybe more than ever.

On the other hand, especially with adventure games, no one I know enjoys the old pixel hunting and revisiting the same room 10 times thing which is a staple of these games. Nonsensical quests, nonsensical item combining, etc. - it's just not much fun. Yeah, it's nice to solve a puzzle and all, but the payoff - some slight movement forward of the story - simply isn't worth it to most anymore.

The very worst thing in these games is the dreaded "stall". Where you've tried everything, combined everything, gone everywhere you can and still can't advance. Then you finally open the game guide and the solution is something stupid, put in by the programmers to deliberately lengthen the game with a dumb puzzle. Far too many adventure games are guilty of this sort of thing, and today's modern gamer simply says, "I'm done with this."

It was different back when you and your friends were all playing adventure games and there was more of a community around it. It was like a community effort to beat the game. The old frustrating moments were in fact bonding moments for us players, like all of us triumphing over the stupid programmer's lousy puzzle. But nowadays, there isn't much community and those frustrating moments are just hell, and make the games no fun.

EDIT: perfect example of what I'm talking about (and a pretty funny video series too!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6anQ-8eST4

I see what you're saying, but not everyone wants to play online with hundreds and/or thousands of people all the time... And FPS games are beyond boring once you've played through them a couple of times...
I don't mind good competition from time to time, but to waste my life playing FPS, I'll pass... I can get the same thrill of Strategy Making in a good game of Chess or Stratego...

Okay, so now I guess I can see that there is some basic thought involved if you play that way, but I still don't think it compares to the thought process something like Pandora requires you to use or many other games from the 90s...

Now don't get me wrong on this, I like violence in a game such as God Of War or Grand Theft Auto... But is that All we should have available to us??? Take UAKM or Pandora... Very little violence, but agreed by many to be a couple of the greatest games to ever hit the computer screens...
So while you have your strategy of choosing what rock to hide behind to get the best drop on the guy coming around the corner, where are the games to challenge the Intellect???

Hmm, well, I can't really convince you of the depth of strategy in the top FPS games if you don't play them. It goes way way way beyond "which rock to hide behind". Seriously, try that out on a game like Team Fortress 2 or UT3. It will work once, maybe, and then your opponent will know your trick.

Anyway, my point is the thinking is there. Maybe not your preferred brand, but it's there.

I've played plenty of FPSs... Everyone's point of view isn't always going to be the same...

Bafitis wrote:I've played plenty of FPSs... Everyone's point of view isn't always going to be the same...

I'm not debating the issue based solely on my opinion. There's quite a bit of empirical evidence to back it up.

Have you heard of Fatal1ty? He consistently wins FPS tournaments to the tune of around $500k for his career. Yes, half a million bucks. Nobody wins like that simply because "they know which rock to hide behind."

Offline FPS games, sure, you can run a pattern. Because of that with rare exceptions, such as half life 2 or bioshock, offline FPS games bore me. That's exactly why people go online - to take the challenge to the next level. And to compete on the next level, there's a ton of "thinking" involved.

But, I can see there's not much convincing this crowd so I'm gonna let it go.

I'm fairly certain quite a few members here play online FPS... Which ones they play I don't know...

I already admitted to there being fundamental thinking involved, but the way you keep arguing it, you make it sound like it's the same as trying to figure out Logical or Mathematical Puzzles...

To be honest I've been pushed away from a lot of online game play when it comes to games like that... People get it in their head that they must win at all costs, so they find and exploit glitches and cheats in the game or worse they hack it...
The last time I played I had a sniper rifle, had the guy in my sights and put 3 rounds in him... He just stood there didn't even look in my direction, the next thing I know I'm blowing up and his machine gun had turned into a rocket launcher... The map that was selected didn't even have rocket launchers, so tell me how he got it???

It's not the strategy or lack thereof of FPS that I'm debating, but the fact that variety and complexity was thrown out of the window in favor of polished looks and smooth controls. Health and Inventory management is being successfully evicted, true stealth is being replaced by basic cover systems, and exploration has long since disappeared.

Everything is being put together to ensure the player is never put off, stopped, or frustrated in his progress. Games are meant to be completed from start to finish following a simple pattern, without interruption. RPG elements, which nomarlly imply consequences to your choices, are all being integrated so that no matter how you build your character, you never gain or lose anything from it.

You mentionned Fallout 3, which, in the opinion of many, was completely and absolutely broken. One of the top problem with it was that none of your choices, RPG-wise, made a lick of difference. It didn't matter how you built your character, because it had no incidence on your progress. If you didn't boost your hacking, you could always lockpick, anything, anytime. If you didn't boost your heavy weapon, you could still beat the entire game with small guns. Stealth was entirely useless, because of a skill system that makes no sense. Not once were you especially rewarded for a good decision, and not one time, in one little area, were you paying for a foolish decision. Not once were you forced to improvise because of lack of preparation, and not once were you worried about your health status.

In Deus Ex, by comparison, a true complex RPG/Action hybrid, the most insignificant decision brought unforeseen consequences. I will always remember this one runthrough I had when I decided not to carry the rocket launcher, for lack of space, and ran out of explosives during a specific level that required to blow up two heavy mechs. I ended up scavenging the whole area looking for explosive barrels, which I stacked on a rolling cart, rolled it down all the way to the mechs and blew them both to kingdom come. This kind of situation happened all the time in Deus Ex, and it heavily varied from players to players depending on how we decided to play our game. The same is true of Baldur's Gate 2, most certainly the most complex RPG ever made.

None of this is possible today, thanks to homogeneity, simplification and streamlining.

It's not that I want or expect all games to be like this, it's just that once in a while I would appreciate my desires to be fulfilled by a style of gaming we were used to and enjoyed some ten years ago, before gaming became this big business everyone wanted to partake in. The old timers, devs and gamers alike, we built this industry and supported it through and through. The fact that no one caters to our preferred styles anymore, and that we're all forced to play those games built on the same mold, is terribly annoying and frustrating. You can see it everywhere, all over the web. Hordes of frustrated gamers who are simply no longer satisfied or happy with what comes out these days, longing for a complexity and depth which used to be the norm.

Well spoken Frank, well spoken indeed...

I especially like the Fallout 3 reference... I remember Fallout 2 from back in the day, your decisions mattered in that game too... If you killed too many innocents, no matter what town you went to people ran from you or tried to kill you because you had made the decision to be a prick, so now you're going to be treated like one...

I never ended up playing Dues Ex, it sounds like a great game... How old is it??? If it's pretty old, is it possible to run on modern PCs???

The Unreal Tournament series is about engaging as a feather paper-weight. Everyone talks about strategy when it comes to those games... but at the end of the day it's one of the quickest most guns blazing shooter titles there is. You run crazy, jump heaps to avoid getting hit, fire at will, kill, get killed, rinse and repeat as quickly as possible. The only strategy there is "kill more than you get killed". I know this becuase I probably played UT04 almost every day for a very long period of time, and got very good at it... but even when I was good, and regularly coming first on frags I never tried to convince myself it was anything more and mind numbing monotony.

You take a look at other shooters that claim to be new and different:

Prey... wee look you can go upside down and through portals... lets shoot as many things as we can!

Dead Space... wee, look we can shoot individual limbs off aliens... lets shoot as many things as we can!

Team Fortress... wee, look everyone looks like a Looney Tunes character... lets shoot as many things as we can!

...and so forth.

The only game in the FPS genre that really impressed me was Half Life 2... now THAT was how they should be done. It's almost like a mix between an all out story driven adventure and a strategic shooter, with the every so often all out gunfest.

But as for online based shooters like UT... you will never convince me those things are anything beyond dorm room slappers.

-Cub. =o)

Hmmm...where to begin...

Strategy in Online FPS games:

For a while I played Call of Duty 4 online, via the 360, until my free monthly memberships that I had accumulated ran out and I decided not to spend the money on renewal. Here is a very basic scenario that involves some elements of thinking, some elements of strategy and shooting someone in the head.

Imagine a corner on a city street, L shaped. The streets are wide and you can see pretty clearly from the corner to both ends of the street. I am in one building on one side of the street and my objective is just across. Standing at the doorway the street looks clear. I can only choose two weapons, so for simplicities sake I choose an assault rifle and a pistol.

Walking across the street would most likely be asking for death by sniper. Running up's my chances, though I can't shoot and sprint at the same time. There is a car parked in the street. I could run and drop down to a prone position, hoping the sniper is on the other side. That would also be asking for death as I'm merely flipping a coin and hoping for safety's sake, and if I'm right on the sniper's position, once I get up I'll be dead before I sprint. I also can't really sit here, because there are three different entrances to the room I'm in, and I can't possibly cover them all.

I can probably throw a smoke grenade and get across if I sprint. Other opponents might be distracted by the smoke as well. Or, if I don't have any smoke grenades, I could try moving through the buildings in an attempt to get to a nearby sniper position and clear it, safeguarding my route to the objective, or the route of my comrades. That's one scenario.

Personally, I never really cared for the Unreal Tournament series, along with other, more arcade style shooters, and the reason why is that it seems the only way to succeed is:

You have to know the maps
You have to know where the good guns are

Because if you end up with the crappy guns, or even the decent guns, you won't wear away at your opponents health before he shish-kabob's you with whatever giant weapon of doom he's carrying. I like the idea that I can shoot someone a couple times and that's all it takes.

The Call of Duty Series has been a bit awkward, as it has been stained by the awful taint of Treyarch with Call of Duty 3 and World at War, but the Infinity Ward games of 1, 2 and 4 have been fun. Then there's also Rainbow Six, even though they cut out the mission planning aspect entirely, and streamlined the game. The Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter series has been good too, even though the storyline is about you fighting bad guys who want to stop some sore of agreement between the US and Mexico. I don't remember what the point of that was.
___________________________________
Streamling Games:

On one hand a company can give you options. Have no computer skills? Pick the lock! Have no lockpicking skills? Shoot everything that moves. But if the game company limits the options, than this creates a forced path that the designer wants you to tread.

Take for example your fiasco with the two heavy mechs. The designers of the game placed these two weapons of war there, assuming the player will have planned the ordinance to destroy them. If the player doesn't, then they're screwed and are forced into backtracking for a solution.

Let's look at another game, this time Half Life 2. In this game you confront heavily armed striders, giant War of the Worlds contraptions with lots of firepower. The experience you receive when dealing with these foes depends on what Valve has appropriated you for the level. No missile launcher nearby? You'll have to run. It'll be tense, but you'll make it. Missile's nearby? Gotta take 'em out. The point is they provide the guns when you need to destroy your opponents to proceed.

I'd call your example of the confrontation in Dues Ex an example of a broken game, or at least a broken aspect to the game. The developers planned a situation that required the use of specific materials without noting the player that anything would be needed, so the player resorts to carrying what the player thinks might be needed and hopes for the best. I like to view the single player experience of most games as guided experiences, and in that case the guide has failed to note the player of the upcoming confrontation.
__________________________________
And as for Cub's statement...

Prey's portal scenario was really cool at the time (it came out before Portal).
Dead Space was very freaky, and the zero-g stuff was awesome.
Sorry, don't play Team Fortress.

The descriptions you provide are very simplistic views of the games mentioned. I'm sure I could do the same thing in regards to critically acclaimed adventure games as well.

Grim Fandango: Playing this game feels like I'm learning how to drive a stick shift while reading off a map held up to the window of someone else's car. Every press on the gas stalls the engine and flings the steering wheel around, forcing me to look back for the map to tell me where I'm supposed to go again.

Tex Murphy: Overseer: I'd play this game if it wasn't for the massive technology impairments and Clint Howard's terrible acting. Not to mention the fact Pandora Directive had six discs to Overseer's five, and I swapped discs out very frequently for Overseer. It makes things tricky when you have no idea what you missed or where to go, and you have to swap discs every time you switch locations.

Three Cards to Midnight: Connect words together until some dumb blonde can figure out who's sitting across from her.

The only game in the ADVENTURE genre that really impressed me was The Pandora Directive...now THAT was how they should be done. It's almost like a mix between an all out story driven thriller, a puzzle game and a movie with high quality acting from start to finish.

You alright, Vracar? Every time you post these days it seems to be in a horribly negative light.

-Fred

I'd call your example of the confrontation in Dues Ex an example of a broken game, or at least a broken aspect to the game. The developers planned a situation that required the use of specific materials without noting the player that anything would be needed, so the player resorts to carrying what the player thinks might be needed and hopes for the best. I like to view the single player experience of most games as guided experiences, and in that case the guide has failed to note the player of the upcoming confrontation.

Not truly. There were ways, for someone who chose to boost his hacking skills, to disable them, but the path to manual override was a different one, implicating a bit of a different scenario.

DX is the kind of game that had everything thought of, but indeed designed some scripted moments. The reasoning is that it's normal for someone not to be prepared at all times, or in an exceptional position of force in every given situation. Improvisation, and the fact that the engine, and the devs, have covered the possibility of improvisation in each level, is specifically the sign of good design.

The fact that you are taken by the hand, and given the necessary tool specifically when the situation calls for it, is the proof of a lazy design, not the sign that everything is alright. The fact is that it's a lot more simple to give the player exactly what he needs when he needs it, and make it extremely obvious, rather than cover a lot of ground by leaving room for improvisation and put the players in complex situations when he was badly prepared for a specific situation, without completely abandoning him. For everything wrong that can be said about Warren Spector, Deus Ex was anything but broken, and his work was anything but lazy and badly designed. On the contrary, absolutely everything was meticulously taken into account.

The problem with the description you make of good game making is that it takes everything away from the player, and turns the experience into an expensive movie. The fact that your progress cannot possibly be stopped or endangered makes a game extremely trivial and frivolous, compared to the unbelievably compelling and involving adventure that were some games aforementioned. Gears of War is Call of Duty 4 with a different background. Fallout 3 was basically the same, with fake RPG elements thrown in for good measure. What was the point of building your character if it has absolutely no incidence on your progress, and how you go about solving issues?

There is a terrible misunderstanding of what interactivity is all about, and it's been reflecting on mechanical choices of games in the past ten years. This is far from an evolution. Player interactivity has been severely and consistently limited and reduced over the years, to a point where Automatic Health Regeneration is now being presented as the norm, because "A player should not have to backtrack for health" (Eidos Montreal on the justification of AutoRegen in the upcoming Deus Ex 3).

But ONCE AGAIN, I do not expect all games to fit my personal favorite mold. What I am saying is that what you consider to be a broken game is in fact what true interactivity is all about, for the type of gamers looking for a compelling experience that completely sucks you in, and that I would very much enjoy if at least a company or two produced games of this nature. I don't mind some mindless killing, where the engine takes me by the hand, step by step, while I gun down hordes of enemies in a frivolous manner, but I would also like, from time to time, to play another type of game which understands the core mechanics of real role playing, and the implications of good and bad decisions on one's progress. After all, life is nothing but a string of good and bad decision making, and this is the only way to produce a memorable, involving experience.

Fred Buer wrote:You alright, Vracar? Every time you post these days it seems to be in a horribly negative light.

-Fred

Huh. I didn't think about that. I suppose I have been a bit down lately, due to budgeting restraints that force me to cancel any and all fun stuff so that I can pay for school has been bothering me more than I thought it has. So far I've canceled:

One camping trip
One trip to Wisconson
One trip to Great America
Second trip to Wisconson

I'll try to be more positive!

Sorry to hear about your financial woes... I hope things get better for you soon...