Shoot the bad guys? Why?

  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 18:35:42
    As I was watching the E3 coverage with all the games being shown, I noticed that despite the advancements in hardware the excitement that brings, gaming itself is still tied down to the past. This was no more evident than when I saw "The Order: 1886".

    I was actually intrigued by the time period the game was set in and the world itself. That was until they whipped out the big guns and started shooting demons. Almost immediately I was turned off by this. As they were unloading their guns into the vile demons, my interest in the game seemed to fall with each bullet leaving its chamber.

    Why does it always have to come down to that? Why can't we have a genuinely intelligent game that doesn't boil itself down to just shooting things?

    Developers (perhaps even ask yourself this) should start asking themselves "Why do we need guns?" and if the answer is "Just to shoot bad guys" and you can't come up with a better reason than that, don't do it or come up with a better reason.

    Violence in games would be so much more impactful if it had some context. Instead, all the effort seems to be going into how well the shooting mechanic plays. I'm not knocking that at all, no doubt it needs to play well. But just as much effort should be going into making the player understand WHY they need to shoot something.

    Is it important? What happens if you don't? Should you? Why shouldn't you? These are important questions that the player could answer for themselves in-game if the developers would take off the training wheels and simply let them.

    This is part of the reason gaming is really starting to become more of a chore for me and why so many games that are of AAA quality don't peak my interest or only keep my interest for a very short period of time. I'm 25 years old, and those games that I enjoyed when I was 15 simply don't interest me anymore. The thing is, those same games are being made today. The only difference is the graphical fidelity and smoother gameplay.

    With the advancement in technology over the years, gamers have been demanding more and more meaningful choices from their games. We saw it with Mass Effect 3 most recently; people want their actions and decisions to have significance. They want them to matter. Why isn't that same want being applied to violent actions like shooting the bad guys?

    There are so many possibilities here for the player to make meaningful choices without the developer getting in the way and telling them "You must shoot the bad guys!", just because they're the bad guys. More importantly, developers don't have to make RPG's or choice-defining games like "The Walking Dead" in order to give the player choice.

    Does this mean every game needs be this way? No. But with the large number of AAA games today being little more than "Pull the right trigger to shoot things", would it really hurt if some of them added some depth and context to those actions and awarded the player for his or her choices? I don't think so.

    But this would require a lot of outside thinking and re-working of the whole system. The system that is currently being used today is no different than the one that was used when Wolfenstein and DOOM hit the scene. Games have certainly become more complex since then, but the core mechanic has remained EXACTLY the same: "Load level. Shoot bad guys." Rinse and repeat.

    This is why I think David Cage's games are really important. Do I think the guy is an egotistical know-it-all most of the time? Absolutely. But his games are a breath of fresh air and I think he sees the bigger picture. I think we need more people like him (minus the ego) who are willing to put Wolfenstein and DOOM aside and do something that gives us a reason (or many reasons) for doing things in the game.

    It's a big risk, and I don't expect the industry to move in that direction until enough players demand it. We've been raised on this very specific (and very simple, yet satisfying) formula, and maybe we're not ready for the change just yet. Maybe we need some more time to grow up so that we can see the bigger picture that's in front of us.

    The original formula may work, but it's old and outdated and so are its ideas. It's comfortable for both us and the developers, no doubt. We're very familiar with it and the developers have years of experience to fall back on and fine tune. But in order to progress, gaming needs to leave it's comfort zone behind and walk into uncharted territory.

    I hope one day we can do that.

    :)

    Edited by EpicBoot2daFace at 18:41:24 14-06-2013
  • bobdebob 14 Jun 2013 18:37:50 520 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Heavy Rain was almost complete shite.
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 18:41:19
    Most games are about killing things. Guns are the most efficient way to kill things. End of thread.
  • Mr_interesting_2011 14 Jun 2013 18:41:20 93 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @bobdebob no it wasn't...it wasn't perfect but it was something a little different.
  • Whizzo 14 Jun 2013 18:44:26 42,772 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Heavy Rain had a script more poorly written than most SyFy channel movies of the week.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • bobdebob 14 Jun 2013 18:44:55 520 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @Mr_interesting_2011
    It was one long QTE sequence with a made-for-tv plot, an illusion of choice and weak acting save for Shelby. Only worth a single playthrough.
  • jambii267 14 Jun 2013 18:45:12 1,311 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Nintendo.

    NNID: Jambii267 PSN: Dr-Jambii 3DS: 0216-0806-8561

  • Mr_interesting_2011 14 Jun 2013 18:48:13 93 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I agree there was lots wrong with it but it was much more interesting than generic shooter 101
  • Zizoo 14 Jun 2013 18:49:48 7,733 posts
    Seen 9 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Because they shot first!
  • bobdebob 14 Jun 2013 18:53:10 520 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @Mr_interesting_2011
    Only more interesting as curiosity.
  • DrStrangelove 14 Jun 2013 18:54:46 2,568 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I think shooters and story don't go well together. The best shooters are those with the least amount of story, and the shooters that have story usually have really crappy idiot b-movie story.

    And obviously, I don't want my shooting action to be interrupted by dim-witted cutscenes.

    Intelligent games can be great, dumb games can be great. It's just the half-arsed middle ground that's usually utter shit.
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 18:56:36
    ZizouFC wrote:
    Because they shot first!
    An excellent point. In that case, you engaging that character would be self-defense and is a valid response. It's certainly an emotional response that game developers expect you to have and continue to use throughout the game.

    But why did that character shoot first? Was there a reason behind it (like maybe he wants your stuff?) or was it only because that character was programmed by the developers to do so with no in-game motivation or payoff in the end?

    Would that character's motivation for taking the first shot or lack of motivation altogether make you feel anything one way or the other?
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 18:59:06
    Part of the problem comes down to the use of cutscenes as a story telling device. As soon as you have them in there then you have to force the player into a limited range of options otherwise you'll never be able to get the game out.

    I would love more games to have consequences for the choices you make but the standard of writers is limited in gaming, the complexity of programming up the result of those choices can be massive and the skills in games programming lies more in shooter mechanics than trying to make the player feel something.

    You've also ignored several genres of games and a massive amount of games that don't have guns but I'll ignore that.
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 19:00:38
    And David Cage is a terrible writer who makes games that are often incoherent with non-existent gameplay. He really shouldn't be something to aspire to for other AAA games.
  • bobdebob 14 Jun 2013 19:02:13 520 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    You're also stepping on stone-cold classics, like Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros, Doom, Tetris etc.
  • Arrr9 14 Jun 2013 19:02:33 398 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    If the guys are bad..... then shoot them
  • DrStrangelove 14 Jun 2013 19:05:06 2,568 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    None of those "bad guys" ever throatstabbed me...
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 19:09:59
    Aargh. wrote:
    Part of the problem comes down to the use of cutscenes as a story telling device. As soon as you have them in there then you have to force the player into a limited range of options otherwise you'll never be able to get the game out.

    I would love more games to have consequences for the choices you make but the standard of writers is limited in gaming, the complexity of programming up the result of those choices can be massive and the skills in games programming lies more in shooter mechanics than trying to make the player feel something.

    You've also ignored several genres of games and a massive amount of games that don't have guns but I'll ignore that.
    One of my favorite choices in the Fallout games was one that didn't involve any cutscenes or special moments where the developers had to take me by the hand and guide me.

    For example, I could walk up to a merchant and barter with him or kill him and steal his stuff. The motivation behind my actions was the same regardless of which action I decided to take. I just wanted his stuff. But having that choice was a lot more engaging than if he were to shoot me on sight and I had to kill him anyway.

    Yes, I know I ignored entire genres. But that was primarily because I was talking about The Order, which appears to be a shooter. I think shooting games have bigger problems than other genres like RPG's that are already expanding into new territory.
  • sega 14 Jun 2013 19:10:41 571 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I didn't read that whole massive post but the poster has a point. I tend to avoid shooting games because I find them dull. I've nothing against the genre (enjoyed Doom, Metroid Prime and Half Life games) but a lot of titles do feel the need to include a ton of shooting when there's other interesting gameplay ideas beneath it.

    The latest Tomb Raider is a good example of this. I enjoy the series for its puzzle solving platform elements. Entering a large room and finding a way to the bottom without falling or finding a way to open a gate is what I enjoy. Throwing a ton of enemies you need to shoot on top of that really ruins the experience (not to mention the feeling of isolation they're supposed to have).

    I've become quite an expert on buying games without shooting in them. Limbo, Amnesia, Portal (it counts), Telltale/Lucasarts adventures, Silent Hill Shattered Memories are some good ones that come to mind as games with peril, but requiring your wits instead of firepower.

    That's another thing. There are a lot of games with shooting gameplay seem to have a horror theme. I can only speak for myself here, but I find it nearly impossible to be scared entering a spooky location with more weapons than a person can carry.
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 19:14:38
    I would like at least 1 where choosing to shoot made it harder than deciding to kill everything in sight, and I don't just mean there are less guards if you kill less of them. I'm thinking more that as long as you stay the right side of the law and don't do anything you legally shouldn't do then you're free to go where you want and do what you want to do.

    I know some RPGs sorta let you do it but a 1/st 3rd person 'shooter' letting you do it would be nice.

    Naughty Dog get halfway there then they stick guns in each time.
  • IncredibleKoosh 14 Jun 2013 19:19:27 239 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Play Spec Ops: The Line.
  • RobTheBuilder 14 Jun 2013 19:20:15 6,521 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @Aargh. Agreed. To an extent deus ex:hr has elements of that, if you shoot someone you usually get swamped with enemies.

    Plus it's good to have a game where (bosses aside) you can play the entire game without killing anyone.

    Edited by RobTheBuilder at 19:20:57 14-06-2013
  • bobdebob 14 Jun 2013 19:22:51 520 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @IncredibleKoosh
    The mediocre GOW-clone?

    You can beat Deus Ex 2 without killing anyone.

    Edited by bobdebob at 19:28:13 14-06-2013
  • PazJohnMitch 14 Jun 2013 19:26:16 7,316 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Watchdogs has a setting where it could tailor the action / police response in exactly the manner Aargh describes.

    I doubt it will mind...
  • UncleLou Moderator 14 Jun 2013 19:45:13 35,176 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Whizzo wrote:
    Heavy Rain had a script more poorly written than most SyFy channel movies of the week.
    The individual scenes were often very good - the overall plot was pretty shit, but at least it had the excuse of multiple story options and characters dying. Most games don't.

    I guess the problem is, if you don't have combat, you have to find a different, meaningful interaction, and outside of the simple thing that combat is, that would be damn difficult to realise, particularly in today's world of games where the technical demands are so high. Most interaction I can think of would require constantly increasing, almost infinite branching.
  • Deleted user 14 June 2013 20:04:37
    I don't want any of you to think I'm advocating taking combat out of the equation. What I want is context and reason behind the combat. That context involves asking questions.

    The next time you guys play a shooter game, ask yourself questions. Why do I have to shoot these guys? Why are they trying to murder me? Did I do something wrong? Do they want something from me? Are they just programmed to do this with no motivation?

    Depending on the actions of the AI, the story, and your actions, the answers will become very clear. If the dots don't connect and the different elements of the game don't make sense, it might take you out of the experience. It certainly did with me and continues to do so. In fact, based on my own experience, I've found that game developers don't want you or I doing too much thinking while playing their games.

    I'll use an example here that you may find interesting. In Gears of War, EPIC made the entire world for the game from scratch. It didn't exist and now it does. Millions of dollars and thousands of hours were spent to bring this new grand vision to life.

    So, you have this amazing new world. EPIC says, "You now have the opportunity as a player to interact with this digital world." Naturally, the question is, what do I get to do and how do I interact with it? EPIC responds: "You shoot it".

    Does nobody else feel like they just got punched in the gut? :confused:
  • neilka 14 Jun 2013 20:06:36 14,968 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    All that is necessary for the triumph of bad guys is that good men do not shoot them in the face.
  • bobdebob 14 Jun 2013 20:10:04 520 posts
    Seen 6 days ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Video games.
    Video Games.
    Video GAMES.
    GAMES.
  • skuzzbag 14 Jun 2013 20:12:23 5,487 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    We need more hugging in games
  • Page

    of 3 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply