That is different from my main point in this lecture. I was saying that the very structure of story conflicts with the very structure of gameplay, and that there is likely no way to fix it for most kinds of games. That is a different concept.

I don’t even particularly like the Half-Life series, but I surely respect what they’ve done to further the progress of narrative and gameplay juxtoposition in the business. I remember reading about a session at the GDC of ’08, actually, in which Kim Swift and Erik Wolpaw of Valve (the former … formerly of Valve iirc) were basically saying exactly what you’ve said (five months earlier actually) about the whole disconnect bewteen the story-story and the gameplay-story. :/

Braid was awesome, though!

That being said, I thought you were a little unfair on Alyx Vance. One of the reasons I’ve always liked the Half-Life series is that the story never seems forced, every environment is designed as if it could be a real, used place, and you’re never taken out of actual gameplay for the story. Perhaps my memory is going, but I don’t remember Alyx ever taking particularly long unlocking the doors to explain something other than expressing relief or a similar emotion in one line. All the major story points come at logical breaks after a long sequence of actions. I think the doors provide a more important purpose of directing you towards the current action. It wouldn’t make sense for Alyx to open a door under fire.

Aside from that, Alyx being the only person who can open such doors, being a good shot, and never getting in the way (at least I haven’t encountered it) makes her very attractive from a gameplay rewards perspective as well. In fact, almost all the likable characters in Half-Life 2 are also very helpful, and the game as a whole integrates story and gameplay with minimal interruption better than any other game I can think of. Perhaps some people may still be annoyed with slower sections that don’t involve shooting things in a game packed with such action, but I often doubt those people are looking to take much away from the game. Should the logical and narrative coherence of the game be removed simply for these people to experience non-stop gun-play?

PS Braid was mind-boggling fun, thanks for making it

I’ve been feeling that today’s games are like watching a movie, but stopping after each and every scene to solve a puzzle or take a quiz before proceeding, just because it’s a “game”. I am approaching games as a way of communication, to soak in whatever devs worked so hard for, and so these challenges are nothing more than obstacles.

Apparently, others don’t feel the same. After peeling open a fresh, new game, they put it in a tray, and start pressing Start button until they can do something, skipping anything devs has placed before the gameplay kicks in. They don’t know what the game is about, they just enjoy shooting people, driving cars off a bridge, or blowing up tanks. For all intents and purposes, games are simply toys for them. Nothing to soak in, nothing to learn from, nothing to reflect on.. Just something to mess around with, and feel “cool.”

Speaking of that, it seems like that’s all game industry really cares about–something “cool”. Cool guns. Cool moves. Cool graphics. Cool this, cool that… I’m sick and tired of hearing that word. I want meanings and purposes in each and every little assets in a work. I hear average age of today’s audience is like 30-something. Isn’t industry mature enough to put more emphasis on something other than something “cool”?

Earlier this week I was lurking on a forum and stumbled across a thread which was “What was the first game you played”. Most of the responses were from the playstation/n64 era, and one read “Halo, when I was 6”. Besides feeling very old, I have to wonder how that will effect an industry push toward a golden age. New talent coming into games was introduced to the medium during the story-as-crutch, bloated budget, “film+interactivity-human impact” age. To them, its what games are. Graphics and story.

Perhaps the golden age of games will end up more closely resembling a radical art movement than something embraced by the mainstream.