The best I can do is go through the Steam reviews for what people are saying about the Half-Life now because I have no desire to buy it and play it just to check out the level designs at the moment.
“As someone old enough to remember the first-hand buzz over Half-Life in highschool, but never having played it until 15 years later, I’m very glad I ignored the voice telling me it’d have dated gameplay mechanics and be dated and weak by todays standards because I was 100% wrong and enjoyed it from start to finish … Half-Life certainly has fairly bland graphics and visual palettes by some standards, it’s still artistically appeasing to look at, particularly in the intro but even the level designs and contrasts of later levels are striking at times and the physics engine is no longer impressive by todays standards, but strengthens the gameplay rather than being a dependent part of it … it still felt impressive to play through.”
“This game is still awesome and fun to play to this day. Good level design.”
“I was somewhat late to the party when it comes to Half-Life. Valve’s debut title was released back in 1998, and yet I only actually played the game last year in 2016. Half-Life currently and always will occupy the grand title of my favourite game ever. LEVEL DESIGN: As most of the game takes place inside of the facility (named Black Mesa), most parts of the game are labs and rooms you’d find in a scientific facility. Parts are exploded or broken, due to the fighting that is taking place, along with various explosions. Enemy placement is done well, and the AI is also pretty good, some obviously smarter than others, the Black Ops being the hardest to kill in my opinion. With each scene change comes new scenery, always fitting the setting. I won’t expand because I’d like to stay spoiler free, but the point is that all the level design is well done, from enemy placement to textures and such.”
“Great Environment (The feeling of being alone and surrounded by enemies from all sides)”
“Excellent level designs”
Ah no details to be found there… at least not unless one wants to dig through all 15,960 reviews. But it surely is quite popular even in 2017.
I recently re-bought it in the Orange Box package and played through HL, HL2, and Portal and they’re all pretty great. Hmm, come to think of it, Valve managed something fairly unique with Portal as well.
Hmm… they probably produced the earliest modern variants on MMORPGs, RPGs, and RTS (WOW, Diablo, Starcraft) but all those genres were already around. Maybe I posed the question too broadly, I meant ground-breaking in the same way id basically invented the FPS.
Probably, though, this is as stupid as asking “What is AAA?”
Eh, Blizzard is more about pouring UX expertise into an already existing genre. It’s more like the case with Apple where they didn’t invent the mp3 player, but they got pretty close to perfecting it.
I would say that Assassin’s Creed was a major new idea at the time. An AAA (yeah, yeah…) game focused not on combat, but on stealth (“social stealth”), on environmental navigation, on the idea of tactical planning in a dynamic environment (they strayed away from that for a little while, but they seem to be going back to it). Even today, is there anything really like Assassin’s Creed? If you wanted, you could probably go back to Prince of Persia, but that’s the same company of course.
And Just Dance. It of course existed in some sense in arcades with dance pads, but was there a home console game like it before? And is there anything like it out there now?
And what about Grow Home? I wouldn’t say all of it is completely unique, but it was all based around procedural animation and climbing. I would be hard pressed to point to another game similar to it.
As for basically creating a genre…well…“parkour game.” “Dance game” (again, not really created, but made it for a home console). “Climbing game.” That’s reaching, but I think it kind of fits.
And even now, they maintain a far, far more diverse selection of games than pretty much any other developer out there, including EA or Nintendo.
The Dishonored series is a lot like AC, and frankly, being stealthly and overall gameplay in Dishonored is waaaay more fun than AC, in my opinion. AC was still the first for that type of navigation (that I can think of) and I’ve always assumed Bethesda was just cashing in on the AC hype, but if you liked AC, try Dishonored, these days you can buy a 4-in-one (3 DLC). Even if, like me, you’ve gotten worn out on the repetition in the AC sequels. Dishonored is different-enough you’ll probably enjoy it. I also appreciate it’s one of the few games where it’s genuinely reasonable to complete every mission without killing anyone at all.
I wouldn’t consider a home console implementation of an arcade game to be particularly ground-breaking.
I remember trying to play original Assassin’s Creed and being bored to tears with it.
I would not call it a major idea.
It was pretty much “AAA budget” + “GTA open world” + “Parkour” + “one button control”.
The one noticeable thing at that time was the amount of cash they blew on visuals. But that’s about it.
Original Thief game could be called groundbreaking. Not assassin’s creed.
Minecraft could be called groundbreaking, even though there were several games in development playing with the same idea. Dwarf fortres. Original Doom. Original Quake. Half Life 1. Half-Life 2. But that’s about it. Most of the games were about incremental changes, without much “ground breaking”.
I tried out Dishonored. I didn’t find it very similar at all, personally. Dishonored is more like one of those “immersive sims” like Deus Ex, I would say.
And fair enough.
GTA open world? One button control? Blowing cash on visuals? Did you play the same Assassin’s Creed I played?
It sounds like you’re describing AC 3 (which is one of the most disliked, and where the series started losing sales every year), not AC. AC didn’t have any of that.
Much like MV10, I have to wonder how you compare Minecraft to Dwarf Fortress (you said “games playing with the same idea.” These games are not “playing with the same idea.”).
The most striking thing in AC1 was ridiculously oversimplified control scheme, to the point of “press B to win”, pretty much. Compare “parkour” in AC1 to tomb raider or to Prince Persia 2008.
The series, basically attempt to wow player with visuals and “cinematographic” experiences and offer relatviely shallow gameplay component. That’s their defining characteristic - oversimplified controls, expensive visuals, little or no challenge. Tried to get into it several times, unsuccessfully, so I gave up on it. Clearly not my kind of thing.
Fair enough, you’re certainly entitled to your view of the series. But I think you’re doing it a disservice by not recognizing what it added to the gaming landscape.
I have no interest in FPS games (and to some degree dislike the genre), but can recognize the importance of games like HL, Halo, or Doom.
It is a type of “you could watch a movie instead” experience which I’m not very fond of.
Service/disservice doesn’t matter, because the franchise works quite well as ubisoft’s cash cow.
It is a financially successful title. But I would not call it ground breaking. It could be a good example of successfully establishing and milking a franchise, though.
Well, that type of movement and the premise of social stealth was not done before, liking in or not (I don’t like it either) does not mean it wasn’t groundbreaking.
