StatikShock said:
Why would I, a stranded person fresh from a plane crash, finding a strange needle thing, without even QUESTIONING wtf it is, just straight up inject myself with it? Im sorry, but that ripped me out of the game faster than anything else Ive experienced before (in a FP game).
*Trying to avoid spoilers*
It isn't your character's choice. That's the whole crux of the plot. I know that the special circumstance doesn't happen, but it's an introduction to the idea that Rapture is taking control, and its master (you know who) is pulling the strings. This idea of interactivity--plot events that happen because your character's power of choice is limited--sort of ties in to your (and my) next point.
Wall of text incoming.
As for playing games before 2003... I realize that older games have a lot of nostalgic value. I have quite a back catalog of older games that I love dearly: Final Fantasy 4 and 6, Jet Force Gemini, Mario before he lost his soul, Quest 64, GoldenEye, Castlevania (the first NES one all the way through SotN, the N64 titles, the current handheld generation, and the PS2 titles), Jurassic Park and Vectorman for the Sega Genesis, Paper Mario 64 (never got into Thousand-Year-Door and I don't have a Wii), Silent Hill, Dick Tracy and Legend of Zorda (or whatever the name was) for the NES, StarCraft, the Command & Conquer series, Age of Empires II, and a long line of Zelda and Metroid games.
However, as much as I love those games, I have to consider something: many of them are not possessed of the same capabilities as today's games. In playing Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Call of Duty 4, GTA4, and Mass Effect, I found much deeper gaming experiences than I could ever hope to find in Vectorman or Jet Force Gemini. As fun as those games were, they didn't make me think something I thought continually while I was playing Mass Effect: "I have never seen anything like this before. I feel compelled to continue playing just for the sake of seeing what this game is going to present to me next and how the plot will unfold." Today's games tend to be much more successful in creating beautiful, believable worlds that draw you in and truly make you a part of the experience.
About 2/3 of the way through BioShock, the plot twists and philosophical dilemmas that came crashing down on me left me giggling, with a triumphant feeling that I had been a part of something MUCH greater than anything a mere movie could present: I had DONE all these things, PHYSICALLY been a part of them, rather than watch someone else be a part of them. Let me tell you, those three words scrawled on the walls of Ryan's office hit me far harder than "I am your father" EVER did or could hope to do.
That feeling that I am a part of a game, actually having an impact on a world that is much greater and deeper than the rather limited Hyrule of the NES Zelda games, is profound. That is why I believe games are a more effective engine for storytelling than movies ever could be. However, with old-fashioned games, I very rarely feel that, if at all. Richter is under Dracula's control? Okay, I need to find these two bits of a ring and put them together, then after the fight, watch a kneeling Richter (one of maybe 20 sprites--I'd seen him in that exact same kneel a dozen times during the fight with him, when he was crouching to get in a low attack) apologize to me (standing there in the same posture I do when I'm not touching anything during normal game time) with an echoing sound like he's talking at me out of the bottom of a well.
Don't get me wrong, SotN was an amazing game, and--like nearly all of the games of yesteryear that we cherish so deepy--quite ahead of its time. However, it just didn't move me. By contrast, say, the ending of Assassin's Creed (the end of Altair's part) allowed me to watch two characters with a deep, developed relationship have this crisis, and I watched it unfold in a way as close to reality as I could ever ask for.
I know that the true old-time gamers are going to say, "Well, you still aren't old enough to have played early-to-mid-90's games like Monkey Island or Grim Fandango! You haven't experienced the type of game that REALLY makes today's games look terrible!" Look. I've heard Yahtzee go on and on about how good these games are, and I've certainly heard forum-goers go on and on about how good they are. I realize that classic adventure games may have been quite well-written and memorable. Well, BioShock was quite well-written and memorable too. Anyway, this isn't my point.
My point is this: classic games may have been great for their time, and I will be the last person on Earth to deny that they are true gems of gaming. However, having played those games does not make you some sort of super-gamer with the right to say that all of today's games suck because they don't have the nostalgic power over you that, say, Monkey Island has. I want everyone to understand that experiencing something in one of today's games has the potential to be much more engaging. The world ends in FF6? The screen turns red and I watch the animation of some spell I can learn in the game hit buildings in a city. The world ends in CoD4? I watch an atomic bomb go off (in 3D), experience the helicopter crash firsthand, and actually get to see my character's death--all without ever leaving my character's perspective.
True "classic classics"--the games that revolutionized gaming like Grim Fandango, FF4, Mario 64, or whatever--exist in a ratio to their less-notable contemporaries at a ratio of something like 1 to 50, but that's okay: the limitations of their technology made them amazing in the first place. However, today, every game has the potential to be as world-shattering, since the sky is practically the limit and every game can be a Half-Life 2. And games are only going to get better.
The evolution of games is a good thing, and as fond as we may be of older games, they're going to be less and less impressive in comparison to the Grim Fandango and Assassin's Creed of tomorrow and the day after. So old-time gamers: you are not members of an elite. You simply have a longer history of playing same-old-same-old games with a gem a few times a year. Nowadays, the gems just come more often, and they're going to come even more often in the next decade. I wouldn't have it any other way.
(Please forgive me for changing voice and starting sentences with conjunctions.)
