I found myself very disappointed with half-life 2 for this exact reason. It created such an amazing environment/world only to funnel you through it with little to no regard for this intriguing landscape that absolutely promoted a desire to just wonder about. To see what it had to offer (though being a gamer, I did want the opportunity to also experience relative engagements/combat throughout my experience as well). All I could think of was the missed potential in that game, and it quite honestly broke my heart. I still can’t imagine why it was received so well in the modern gamer community, as even the character-character interaction was not only forced but in a way that detracted from what little enjoyment might have been left in the game.

I think it is a very difficult in today’s game development industry to balance production time with perceived entertainment values (and consequently sale numbers). And the easiest way to get entertainment value is to squeeze out a more or less “intense” but brief action-packed experience with about as much interaction or reflection towards strategy/thoughtfullness towards achieving one’s goals as any given diehard movie.

I hate that most games these days have become nothing more than cheap action flicks which - though undeniably beautiful and oft times convincing - offer no real distinction from game to game outside of when/where it’s happening, along with tons of HUD candy/minor gameplay gadgets, or widgets to distinguish a game as NEW and Genre Defying! You’re basically watching what game developers have set before you unfold at your desktop in what does appear to nothing short of brief distraction.

However I’m not sure how much less distraction or escapism we’re talking about when enveloping ourselves in a game of exploration and immersion into the environment than from jumping into the combat suit of any given generic space marine and saving the galaxy in a few short hours of selected combat.

Also, I would like to make a distinction: There is nothing “hardcore” about playing exclusively shooters and racing games. Sure, it requires some time investment - to achieve the instincts necessary to excel in these games, but the hardcore is the one who always plays a game on max difficulty, the one likes being penalised for failure - the roleplayer and the high-stakes player. Halo 3 is not hardcore. The old Prince of Persia game - where one has to start over upon death, without any checkpoints, or saved games - is hardcore. Diablo II on harcore mode is hardcore. Reviewers cater to the ones with money. Casual gaming has not, until recently, started becoming a significant market. The Übergamers (neither the hardcore nor the casual) are the ones who purchase the games and generate the hype.

I am not certain if I got my point across. I am fully aware of the… disjointedness of my post, and I apologise in advance for any annoyance caused thereby.

And… let us not start a flame war, people. Hmmm?

This thread is about the games press. It is not a secret that I am highly critical of the value of socalled hardcore games. One of the things that I dislike about them is that the genre tends to be incredibly myopic. You accuse me for recycling my own ideas. Well, as opposed to the hardcore genre, my recycling at least doesn’t cost millions upon millions of Dollars.

It’s too easy to dismiss anything that is not a hardcore game as “casual” and to refuse to take it seriously. I can only interpret this reflex as defensive and motivated by fear. That stems me very optimistic. I am sick of the stifling effect that the dominance of the hardcore ethos has on the games industry and culture. As a creator, as a player and even as a human being.

I don’t think casual games as such are a valid alternative. But some games, like Endless Ocean, contain elements that I find interesting. And I’m happy to see that many games journalists are not as stubborn or afraid as you or Tom or the Eurogamer journalist.

The only sad thing here is your lack or perspective and your inability to communicate effectively with your fellow man. As such, I’ll be providing all new insight and paraphrasing for all your new posts, just so others can get a sense for how close minded you are and how absurdly simple and binary the logic is that goes on in that cramped head.

If someone wanted to simply sit and watch and enjoy fish swimming, or not really engage themselves, they could purcase themselves a fish tank, or even a fish tank screensaver, and be equally engaged. Or, for even less money than the game, they can buy a documentary on oceanic life from the Discovery Channel.

The problem, I think, is that Endless ocean seems less like a game than a parody on the life of a diver. Life is boring, people play games to escape it. Why should we pay money to experience life when we can have it for free?

http://www.eurogamer.de/article.php?article_id=88944