I don't particularly mind the level of violence in computer games, partly because it's absurd, and partly because I'm hopelessly desensitised. What I do object to is the dick-swinging machismo that infests games like this. If I had a penny for every time I've spent the opening moments of a game sitting in the back of a transport vehicle listening to a soldier called Vasquez repeatedly use the word "motherfucker", I'd have enough money to buy the Sesame Street game instead. And even that probably starts with Sergeant Grover warning Private Elmo that "Shit is about to get real".

Sure enough, a cursory Google search on the reviewers' user names backed up our suspicions. One of the reviewers was a user interface artist at Telltale; another was a cinematic artist.

I really think it should be the policy of most critical outlets to re-review games after six months or so. So much of reviews feel like they're 'First Impressions' rather than in-depth 'reviews.'

A video game isn't a movie.

The person playing the game is supposed to be You.

Games aren't about story, they're about action and choices

There are points to both sides of the argument, but there's still a level of interactivity that's simply not present in quite a handful of FPS games, such as MW3. Portal 2 played itself way more than the original, for instance.

Half-Life, FEAR, Crysis, etc. all give you agency over your actions well still working in well-crafted visual narratives and setpieces.

I won't say there aren't merits to the approach MW3 takes, but I don't think the story has enough substance to make up for the demerits.

The person playing the game is supposed to be You.

... what? What rule is this? Usually a character that tries too hard to be the player is a silent, boring blank slate that ends up being preposterous instead of immersive. I'd much rather play a well-rounded character than a Gordon Freeman. Silent protagonists tend to blur into each other after I've played a hundred of them.

Games aren't about story, they're about action and choices

What weight do the action and choices have without a story? What's the payoff of choosing something you don't give a shit about? Most games have stories, and could be improved by having better stories, which is what will keep them unique throughout the years -- its features will be borrowed and improved by other games until the original has nothing but its story left to set it apart, and without a good one it'll be rendered obsolete.

I'd say "serviceable", not "well-crafted". In my opinion, none of these games have memorable narratives. Especially FEAR. And while CRYSIS does offer you a wealth of options on how to tackle your enemies, HALF-LIFE and FEAR are not games I'd put on the same level. Hell, HALF-LIFE is one of the most famous examples of linear design, and the combat in FEAR gave you pretty much the same options MW3 gives you, plus slow-motion.

Portal 1 didn't show you how to solve every puzzle and even had a couple different ways to solve some. Portal 2 is basically find the white walls.

I agree with Stawes re: Portal 2. Portal 1 allowed and encouraged experimentation within the test chambers, with a huge scope for mistakes and physics fuckery. Portal 2 made sure almost every non-critical wall was un-portalable, meaning that all you had to do to solve each puzzle was find the white squares, identify which would shoot you where, and work backwards, regardless of which tool you were using at the time.

"... what? What rule is this? Usually a character that tries too hard to be the player is a silent, boring blank slate that ends up being preposterous instead of immersive. I'd much rather play a well-rounded character than a Gordon Freeman. Silent protagonists tend to blur into each other after I've played a hundred of them."

Miscommunication there, sorry. What I was thinking of when I wrote that was the video from the last Modern Warfare showing the player just trailing along behind the companions as they shot everything in sight, leaving the player as a supporting role whose input was barely necessary. That shouldn't happen, ever.

The best version of Earth Defense Force is still Global Defense Force, which is the PS2 version of EDF2. The best GTA is still San Andreas. Final Fantasy peaked with FFIII, on SNES. I keep hoping someone will do a new game worth playing based off the Star Control gameplay, and would love a proper remake of the 3DO version of Starfighter. Grim Fandango is still the best adventure game I've ever played, precisely because the story was so incredibly strong. Each of these games is old to some extent, and some are better for story and others for the actions they allow the player to perform. There is no winning formula in making these games come to mind as special gaming experiences. This is why I say that, while story isn't irrelevant, it isn't what gaming's about.

I'd much rather play a well defined character like Garrett, or Adam Jensen, or Faith, or Isaac Clarke, or Sareth, then make a well defined character like Soap or Jackson or Price walk through a bunch of heavily scripted set pieces that would play out the same way whether or not they were there.

FEAR also has a lot of variety within the fire fights. Of the numerous times I've played it, the fights always played out slightly, but noticeably, differently.

Also, generally when talking about something like Call of Duty causing a reduction in player agency, the subject is shooters. And while there are some very note-able exceptions, I don't think it's an unwarranted observation.

DEUS EX: HUMAN REVOLUTION, RESISTANCE 3, CRYSIS 2, BORDERLANDS, BULLETSTORM, LEFT 4 DEAD, METRO 2033; there's quite some variety in gameplay design of shooters, and the amount of player agency will depend on the style of each.

Publishers will go where they think the money is, and right now they think the money is in the CoD on rails with occasional arena design.