This was a nice watch. My personal perspective and introduction to 3D gaming was on consoles, not on PC, and the first generation of 3D games of the late 90s that had a huge impact on me were...
This was a nice watch. My personal perspective and introduction to 3D gaming was on consoles, not on PC, and the first generation of 3D games of the late 90s that had a huge impact on me were Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Especially LoZ:OoT was a game that not only had phenomenal graphics and scale for its time, but also told a story. Now, granted, that story was not particularly groundbreaking literarily (and retread similar ground to the previous games in the series). But, they did throw in some interesting elements like the Sheikh reveal and the time-traveling stuff that was pretty fresh, and mechanics like the z-targeting and the Lens of Truth that really weren’t possible without the 3D engine, and led to really interesting gameplay.
This is all to say, it seems like in video game history there were these moments—such as the original Half-Life—where it seems that a group of creative people were able to harness new technological possibilities and produce something inspiring. I think most recently the Portal series verged on capturing something like that magic for me. I played through Half-Life 2 and the expansion episodes, but I wasn’t that enthralled by it. Yes, the physics were super interesting, but Portal really was a better application of the physics gameplay elements. Though, in retrospect, both the Portal games and Half-Life 2 in a way really felt more like extended tech demos and the stories didn’t stick with me. I think it was around the time of Half-Life 2 that the gaming industry seems to have lost its way.
I see two trends that are anathema to good gaming experiences: navel-gazing and 'open worlds'. The navel-gazing is basically just constant rehashing in the hopes of evoking some sliver of nostalgia. Or putting too much effort in paying homage that you forget to add something original. And the second is a symptom of gaming technology beginning to be capable of simulating the world too well. Personally, MMO sandbox games like Minecraft, Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds, or Battle Royale are not appealing to me because they are not story driven in the sense of intentional narrative. They can possibly provide interactive storytelling by chance, but that is only when players go out of their way to do so, in spite of the game. And don’t get me wrong, I was addicted to Warcraft III, Diablo II and Halo 2 online multiplayer—I know the appeal of that kind of thing. But that is not the best of gaming as art form—that is the best of gaming as competition.
Recently I picked up a Nintendo Switch to see what Nintendo has been doing lately. I picked up Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. And, honestly, I’m not all that enchanted. The game feels very dense with stuff, even in a much larger world than I’m accustomed to, but it also feels very sparse in terms of story. I’m not very far in to the main quest line, and the first big set piece and boss battle was actually quite fun. Yet, it isn’t that much more fun than OoT or Majora’s Mask. In fact, in terms of character and story, Majora’s Mask, or Windwaker feel like much better interactive stories than BoTW.
With video game creators being the metaphorical dog, and real-time interactive game engine tech being the tail, it seems that now it is time that the dog could finally start wagging the tail (as opposed to historically where those roles were inverted). But, it seems like if what creators do with that canvas is make Red Dead Redemption 2 or Breath of the Wild, I can’t help but wonder if maybe the constraints of gaming tech were maybe more of a blessing. That’s something that I’ve learned in other spheres: creative constraints usually end up being counterintuitively helpful. Most of human imagination is just noise, and most of reality is pretty boring. And maybe OoT was so phenomenal in hindsight because it hinted at what would be possible, and now that it technically is, nobody is dreaming up anything interesting. So, attempting to simulate reality too literally (e.g., Cities Skylines), or attempting to combine every idea all at once (e.g., Super Smash Bros: Ultimate) seems like an admission of creative bankruptcy. Or maybe I’m just getting too old and cynical.
This was a nice watch. My personal perspective and introduction to 3D gaming was on consoles, not on PC, and the first generation of 3D games of the late 90s that had a huge impact on me were Super Mario 64 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Especially LoZ:OoT was a game that not only had phenomenal graphics and scale for its time, but also told a story. Now, granted, that story was not particularly groundbreaking literarily (and retread similar ground to the previous games in the series). But, they did throw in some interesting elements like the Sheikh reveal and the time-traveling stuff that was pretty fresh, and mechanics like the z-targeting and the Lens of Truth that really weren’t possible without the 3D engine, and led to really interesting gameplay.
This is all to say, it seems like in video game history there were these moments—such as the original Half-Life—where it seems that a group of creative people were able to harness new technological possibilities and produce something inspiring. I think most recently the Portal series verged on capturing something like that magic for me. I played through Half-Life 2 and the expansion episodes, but I wasn’t that enthralled by it. Yes, the physics were super interesting, but Portal really was a better application of the physics gameplay elements. Though, in retrospect, both the Portal games and Half-Life 2 in a way really felt more like extended tech demos and the stories didn’t stick with me. I think it was around the time of Half-Life 2 that the gaming industry seems to have lost its way.
I see two trends that are anathema to good gaming experiences: navel-gazing and 'open worlds'. The navel-gazing is basically just constant rehashing in the hopes of evoking some sliver of nostalgia. Or putting too much effort in paying homage that you forget to add something original. And the second is a symptom of gaming technology beginning to be capable of simulating the world too well. Personally, MMO sandbox games like Minecraft, Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds, or Battle Royale are not appealing to me because they are not story driven in the sense of intentional narrative. They can possibly provide interactive storytelling by chance, but that is only when players go out of their way to do so, in spite of the game. And don’t get me wrong, I was addicted to Warcraft III, Diablo II and Halo 2 online multiplayer—I know the appeal of that kind of thing. But that is not the best of gaming as art form—that is the best of gaming as competition.
Recently I picked up a Nintendo Switch to see what Nintendo has been doing lately. I picked up Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. And, honestly, I’m not all that enchanted. The game feels very dense with stuff, even in a much larger world than I’m accustomed to, but it also feels very sparse in terms of story. I’m not very far in to the main quest line, and the first big set piece and boss battle was actually quite fun. Yet, it isn’t that much more fun than OoT or Majora’s Mask. In fact, in terms of character and story, Majora’s Mask, or Windwaker feel like much better interactive stories than BoTW.
With video game creators being the metaphorical dog, and real-time interactive game engine tech being the tail, it seems that now it is time that the dog could finally start wagging the tail (as opposed to historically where those roles were inverted). But, it seems like if what creators do with that canvas is make Red Dead Redemption 2 or Breath of the Wild, I can’t help but wonder if maybe the constraints of gaming tech were maybe more of a blessing. That’s something that I’ve learned in other spheres: creative constraints usually end up being counterintuitively helpful. Most of human imagination is just noise, and most of reality is pretty boring. And maybe OoT was so phenomenal in hindsight because it hinted at what would be possible, and now that it technically is, nobody is dreaming up anything interesting. So, attempting to simulate reality too literally (e.g., Cities Skylines), or attempting to combine every idea all at once (e.g., Super Smash Bros: Ultimate) seems like an admission of creative bankruptcy. Or maybe I’m just getting too old and cynical.