Kimmo's Blog (classic)

Half-Life is one of the most succesful games of recent history. It is always a pleasure to say why somethings good and at the same time, aim to claim that for the exact reason it is also a baaad example of its category. Even more when it’s something as influential as Half-Life.

HL is part of a well-established genre of computer games called first-person shooter. HL didn’t actually bring anything new to the genre, it just did a few things well, very, very well. The game has a standard plot revolving around a secret research center and something going wrong with some of that secret research. It also has a silent main character, the player’s alter ego, Gordon Freeman.

The execution of the plot is beautifully balanced as far as gameplay goes. Some half way through the game the player gets hold of some experimental and alien weapons. Shortly after this the player is casted on an alien world. Gordon Freeman is also an existing entity, he has co-workers who get shot infront of his eyes by a soldiers coming to their “rescue”. Now that’s how you engage a player! These soldier eventually learn who’s the lone scientist causing all kinds of mayhem around the center and begin to leave messages on the walls “Die Freeman!” and a host of booby-traps.

HL engages the player using it’s character setup (unarmed, peaceful, scientists, players colleagues, are killed), keeps it interesting when the action is getting boring (new weapons, completely different surroundings). It also executes the essentials of first-person shooters well enough (different weapons, three parties to a conflict [the player, the soldiers and the aliens], interesting level-design).

It is exactly the reasons that makes HL stand out, makes it a bad example of a computer game. The scripted and dramatic actions don’t last a second a playing. While at first making the player feel like he’s part of the gameworld, the second time around they expose their scripted nature. The story runs on rails, with the players actions allowing only one way of advancement. Computer games are not essentially a narrative medium.

Super Mario Worlds 1 and 2 were published by Nintendo for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). SMW1 came with the SNES unit itself (published in 1992 in Europe). SWM2: Yoshi’s Island was published in 1995.

I won’t delve too deeply into the why it is so pleasurable to play Super Mario Worlds. I wish to make a few points that are missing in most of todays games. First of all, the worlds are modeled with certain consistency. Objects (like Koopa shells) interact with other objects (like other shells, blocks, Yoshi’s tongue) and not just some objects that are chosen carefully beforehand. This allows much more freedom for the player to advance and also makes for much more interesting level design. Consistency damnit!

SWM2 also has done with the running clock. I don’t know why this relevant-to-arcades -quality has persisted for so long where it’s absolutely not required. Why should the player be forced to run against a clock, among other things? While this makes sense in the arcades where it’s games intention that playtime per player is limited. Especially in SWM1 I often would like to browse around the level, looking for all the secrets, in peace. It’s quite interesting how a somewhat small change makes a difference in gameplay.

That’s it. If you want more for your click, leave a comment, interactivate!

Populous was produced by Bullfrog and published by Electronic Arts in 1989. Personally it was the time influential years for myself, but I think Populous can teach us something beyond nostalgia.

I believe it was Populous that brought the term god-sim into game-lingo. If I recall correctly it was originally intended that the two sides in the game would be God and Devil but this was changed into simply ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Players intention is to keep a good care of his people, which simply consists of leveling out the land and keeping it level and free of boulders. I think this idea is lovely on its own, but there’s one idea in the game that I think deserves more consideration.

It is the way you control your people. Your people have one designated leader that you can order to go from one place to another, but otherwise you control your people as a whole! This is the idea that e.g. Populous: The Beginning (P3 so-to -speak) lost and succumbed to the boring, unwieldy style of painting a group of people and telling them to go somewhere.

In the original Populous it didn’t matter how many people you had, the control method stayed the same and as effective. The player influenced his people with three buttons that either set them to settle new places, stay home and grow stronger or attack the enemy. Compare this with many so-called realtime-strategy games way of laborously giving orders to your troops one, or a group at a time.

I find this kind of indirect control very interesting and one which would work in any type of game.