|
|
|
|
|
'Why Do Video Games Still Have Levels?'Good question, isn't it? It deserves an answer then... |
By Filip Truta, Games Editor
22nd of November 2007, 13:43 GMT
Adjust text size:  
|
| |
There's a burning question up on Slashdot that desperately needs an answer: "Why do games still have levels?" Well, when simply asking this question, not adding arguments, it may sound a little silly. But, a.d.venturer has a lot more to say abut this burning issue and so I invite you to read the following lines, and then try to answer the question.
Posted by a.d.venturer
(via slashdot.org) "Elite, the Metroid series, Dungeon Siege, God of War I and II, Half-Life (but not Half-Life 2), Shadow of the Colossus, the Grand Theft Auto series; some of the best games ever (and Dungeon Siege) have done away with the level mechanic and created uninterrupted game spaces devoid of loading screens and artificial breaks between periods of play. Much like cut scenes, level loads are anathema to enjoyment of game play, and a throwback to the era of the Vic-20 and Commodore 64 - when games were stored on cassette tapes, and memory was measured in kilobytes. So in this era of multi-megabyte and gigabyte memory and fast access storage devices why do we continue to have games that are dominated by the level structure, be they commercial (Portal), independent (Darwinia) and amateur (Angband)? Why do games still have levels?"
True enough, we are currently enjoying the "multi-megabyte" era and "fast access storage devices" while there still are levels to games. Let's try and answer the question to why some game developers still stick to levels:
Even though gaming systems and the means of storing information have evolved, this could only have lead to the evolution of the software using them as well. Think about it this way: Sony has developed the PlayStation 2, seven years ago. Back then, it sported top notch features, light-speed processing power (for that time) etc.
Video game developers soon saw the possibilities of delivering great looking stuff that also played well and had a lengthier storyline attached to them, with more cinematics to make gamers feel like they're playing a game and watching a movie at the same time (the God of War series is the perfect example). But for that, they had to squeeze the PS2 of all it was worth, so again, loading times and stages had to be a part of the game. So the question really is: why wouldn't developers use everything a system can offer, since the only price to pay is a rather insignificantly fragmented experience?
And if that doesn't answer the question, then simply think of the days when you had sweaty palms until the screen froze and said level complete. Think that still holds some charm...
Nevertheless, the question still deserves a decent, thorough answer (not the kind of stunt I'm trying to pull here), so go ahead, fill up a few lines in the comments column. Maybe you have a better answer.
|
|
| Rating: |
|
Fair (2.4/5) |
5 vote(s) so far |
|
|
|
|
User opinions: |
 No user comments yet.  Be the first to express your opinion using the form below! |
|
|
