stb1swat
Daemon Poster
- Messages
- 728
I wrote this for school back in the pre-demo days of left4dead. Thus had it ready for school at release. Anyhow, this talks about what gaming is today and how its much more soft-core than hard-core (I.E. Old school).
NOTE: left4dead is not the only game to play these days. I just said that because during release...it really was the best thing to play.
First Draft.
Video games are, as many people see them, mindless and rather time wasting. Yes, this is how many people feel about them. But how does a gamer see the games? Does he, or should he, see them as mindless and time wasting? The average gamer would probably say no. Are games like Crysis and Bioshock better than games like Left4dead? They are the more complex story wise and they do have more “bells and whistles†for the gamer to trifle with. Thus the observer will see Bioshock as intrinsic and see Crysis as graphically brilliant; all the while he will see Left4dead as simply “running and gunningâ€. My point is judging books by covers is often acceptable for the people who don't care. Whether you care or not is your choice, and some should care and some shouldn't. It's a matter of circumstance. But, in truth, video games of the 21st century often lack creativity and depth and appeal to an instant enjoyment nerve in certain people, or are liked and loved then lost. Left4dead wipes clean the FPS genre to produce creativity and technological depth.
Such ideas are hard to truly grasp, I don't completely understand myself, because those uncreative video games are still the main subject one will find if he steps into the world of gaming. Crysis will be a franchise soon and will join the growing ranks of franchises. Take the Call of Duties. The fourth was and is a huge hit to the online gaming community even though the concept is age old, and not even as good as its old by age parents. The concept is, however, the fastest and more accurate wins. This is most prevalently seen in the Counter Strike series and the Unreal series. Those who can click with the most precision and accuracy are the best. That's the nutshell. Not to say this is bad, but after too many years of it being diluted and heavily over used to the point where its really and truly uncreative and bad one has to wonder, are over greedy crazy monkeys the only people developing video games?
So why do people still prefer games like Bioshock or Crysis to Left4dead? If Left4dead is the more creative and offers a deeper gameplay experience, it should be the “bestâ€. Well it actually is, or is to a large number of people. And the reasons that make it “the best†are really quite interesting. Its not graphics, or a galactic story of massive density, nor does it even provide an immersible world for the player (immersible worlds are very popular these days). I think Left4dead offers the player a game that really is what old video games, and old board games/card games used to be. Its really not about a story at all. The graphics are nice, but they are not of great focus. What makes Left4dead the only thing to play now days is that VALVe, the developer, created technology that didn't improve a game's face, but improved a games build and body to provide real gaming. The idea of it being co-op is where it really shines. A piece of work can only go so far for one person, but with four friends it is effectively brought out to be the real reason of entertainment. So no, there is no story and there are no fantastical, unworldly features. You're going to loose a lot playing Left4dead. Winning and loosing is better done in the company of those you can bare the defeat with.
NOTE: left4dead is not the only game to play these days. I just said that because during release...it really was the best thing to play.
First Draft.
Video games are, as many people see them, mindless and rather time wasting. Yes, this is how many people feel about them. But how does a gamer see the games? Does he, or should he, see them as mindless and time wasting? The average gamer would probably say no. Are games like Crysis and Bioshock better than games like Left4dead? They are the more complex story wise and they do have more “bells and whistles†for the gamer to trifle with. Thus the observer will see Bioshock as intrinsic and see Crysis as graphically brilliant; all the while he will see Left4dead as simply “running and gunningâ€. My point is judging books by covers is often acceptable for the people who don't care. Whether you care or not is your choice, and some should care and some shouldn't. It's a matter of circumstance. But, in truth, video games of the 21st century often lack creativity and depth and appeal to an instant enjoyment nerve in certain people, or are liked and loved then lost. Left4dead wipes clean the FPS genre to produce creativity and technological depth.
Such ideas are hard to truly grasp, I don't completely understand myself, because those uncreative video games are still the main subject one will find if he steps into the world of gaming. Crysis will be a franchise soon and will join the growing ranks of franchises. Take the Call of Duties. The fourth was and is a huge hit to the online gaming community even though the concept is age old, and not even as good as its old by age parents. The concept is, however, the fastest and more accurate wins. This is most prevalently seen in the Counter Strike series and the Unreal series. Those who can click with the most precision and accuracy are the best. That's the nutshell. Not to say this is bad, but after too many years of it being diluted and heavily over used to the point where its really and truly uncreative and bad one has to wonder, are over greedy crazy monkeys the only people developing video games?
So why do people still prefer games like Bioshock or Crysis to Left4dead? If Left4dead is the more creative and offers a deeper gameplay experience, it should be the “bestâ€. Well it actually is, or is to a large number of people. And the reasons that make it “the best†are really quite interesting. Its not graphics, or a galactic story of massive density, nor does it even provide an immersible world for the player (immersible worlds are very popular these days). I think Left4dead offers the player a game that really is what old video games, and old board games/card games used to be. Its really not about a story at all. The graphics are nice, but they are not of great focus. What makes Left4dead the only thing to play now days is that VALVe, the developer, created technology that didn't improve a game's face, but improved a games build and body to provide real gaming. The idea of it being co-op is where it really shines. A piece of work can only go so far for one person, but with four friends it is effectively brought out to be the real reason of entertainment. So no, there is no story and there are no fantastical, unworldly features. You're going to loose a lot playing Left4dead. Winning and loosing is better done in the company of those you can bare the defeat with.