Jacob Stutsman of Gamer 2.0 writes:
"If Doom and Wolfenstein did not show the world what a first person game could be, then they showed the world its most admirable traits. Edgy, intimate, claustrophobic, and immersive, they were simultaneously credited as the profligate end of western civilization and the beginning of a now familiar trope of violence and realism.
They were also biased, piercing the world like the narrator of a first person book who filters the events through his own experiences and personality. That is how I see the first person game: the player becomes the character, as such is the case in Stephen King's short story I Am the Doorway in which the alien of the story sees the world through eyes of a man."
GB: "We take a look at 15 amazing games that had the perfect length."
Talal writes: "I'm talking about having that rush of excitement - that feeling you get when you know you've just made a memory for a lifetime."
There are different games. Some have gamplay at it highest priority, some have the story, some have the replay value and choices... There are a lot of different game experiences.
It is laughable that just now graphics does not have anything to do with that experiene. We have had many games of that type over time. This is just the one that have come closest to feel like playing an actual movie. Just look the the Digital foundry walkthrough it is a masterpiece in that perspective and hence wrth trying. But yes do not do it for the gameplay - but that was never the goal of this experience.
They don't make games like this anymore.
Too dated in my book. The AI is way too unpredictable to be acceptable today. It's definitely a game of its time.
I had a good time with the game. It is a product of its time. But when it came out it was a must have game for a lot of people. I wish Ubisoft would make another game in the series or at least a reboot.
Due to the lack of modern stealth games, and me constantly playing the MGS series, I've been looking for alternative stealth games to play, and went back and re-played the SC series recently. I wouldn't call SC1 or SC:PT masterpieces, there are AI issues, they're very much trial-and-error games, and that can lead to a lot of frustration. I also found the stories in this series to be boring, uninteresting, and just sloppily told. Cinematics are also of poor quality for both in-game scenes and CG cut-scenes, the soundtrack didn't leave any impression on me either.
Chaos Theory is better, but there was still a lot of room for improvement, and Double Agent (old gen ver.) was a sloppy mess that ended up a regression from CT. But still, at least they tried back then, these days Ubi-junk doesn't even try to make good games!
I definitely think that it's a little unfair to think that every game needs to be categorized and placed into a box. When you think like that, you immediately stifle creativity, which ultimately would lead us to playing cookie cutter games with gameplay mechanics adjusted here and there. Look what happened after Gears of War came out, a f**k ton of games with "the best cover system" came out. Stop following the leader and break out of the box!
Portal seems to fit this ideal really well since it was basically a puzzle-platforming game that was presented in a first-person viewpoint while giving you what seemed to be a gun, but was more of a tool to solve puzzles. The story and atmosphere really helped to make the whole game a cohesive experience where none of those pieces really felt out of place. Then there was Still Alive. :D