Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / On Ultraviolence in Games, and the Lessons of Porn

Author
Message
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 02:07
^Best comment in the whole thread.

Aaron Miller
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 02:14
Hahahaha! I have to agree with Seppuku there; best comment in the whole thread. xP

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 02:15
Well, if any of you can understand it then you can discuss it, but so far I haven't seen any indication that anyone understands it. Aaron's comparisons didn't work at all.

Libervurto
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 02:51
@Sepp
I think the value of grammar is actually a really interesting discussion, but you're right: we aren't helping anyone by commenting about his writing behind his back. I'm going to bury the Tippex and leave it at that.

Quote: "in a game series you expect the next game to be a natural progression from the last game. I would not want to see Zelda suddenly become the beacon of innovation in modern video games. People play Zelda for Zelda."

Progression is the keyword, there has to be progression in some form, whether it manifests itself in terms of new mechanics or story progression. The saying that people are afraid of change is a brazen lie: people love change, they crave it, what scares them is radical change.

It's not even a question of innovation, but of branding. If you make a game that's successful you'll forever be associated with that game, and you'll be stuck with a fan-base who were attracted by that specific title and that specific type of game. From then on you are bound by certain expectations of what your future games should be, and making too many radical changes to your "winning formula" could produce a game that your current fan-base has no interest in. By innovating at this point you risk disenfranchising the majority of your fan-base, and if sales are really bad, losing your entire company. You're attempting to jump from one moving train to another.

The reason indie developers are more innovative is they have a much smaller share of the market. It's not so much that the risks are less, they still need to pay the bills even if it's a one-man company, but the rewards are much higher. Take Notch as an example, he never dreamed that Minecraft would be so popular, but he didn't need it to be, a couple of thousand sales would probably have covered his costs. So making an innovative game wasn't such a gamble because he had low targets to achieve.

So is it any wonder that large game companies pump out fifty renditions of the same title with a few tweaks here and there? They've essentially painted themselves into a corner and become victims of their own success. The more customers you have, the more dependent you become on those customers.

Shh... you're pretty.
Aaron Miller
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 03:19
Quote: "By innovating at this point you risk disenfranchising the majority of your fan-base"

Ha. That made me think of Stephen King's Misery. I don't think anyone wants to go through that.

I agree with what you're saying though, because it makes sense. But also, a lot of the engines that the developers make are really tailored to the types of games they make. Take Frostbite 2 for example. It's been used for Battlefield 3 as well as Need for Speed. But (if I'm not mistaken) that was done by separate studios, with separate internal code bases (even though those code bases are built on top of the engine). Or at least, that's how I imagine it is; I don't know for sure. What I'm trying to get at, is that the large codebases may be tailored for certain types of games and the companies can't risk trying to alter that codebase too radically for a type of gameplay that might not pan out. (In addition to the reasons you've mentioned.)

I can't see the market, at any point, becoming dominated by indies though. That just doesn't make sense to me. Even if the market becomes so saturated that it's difficult to tell the difference between games, I don't think indies would "save the day." There are obvious reasons why not, such as their lack of outreach into the overall market.

Random side note: It's difficult to imagine a world without mega consoles (PS3, Xbox 360, etc... as opposed to Ouya) as well.

Libervurto
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 03:42 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 03:47
Quote: "I can't see the market, at any point, becoming dominated by indies though. That just doesn't make sense to me. Even if the market becomes so saturated that it's difficult to tell the difference between games, I don't think indies would "save the day." There are obvious reasons why not, such as their lack of outreach into the overall market."

Really? With digital distribution I don't think that's an issue any more. Marketing may still be in the grasp of the big publishers though and that's where they have the edge, but like I said before these indie developers don't really need a marketing behemoth behind them to be successful.

The current circumstances create an interesting dilemma between funding and freedom. Realising the full potential of your vision requires major funding, but that funding limits innovation. So are we stuck with mediocre-quality innovative games and high-quality generic ones? Or are we going to see more Molyneux style developers who build up companies then jump ship when they feel the innovation has drained? It could be argued that this is much more plausible today since you can downgrade your company and essentially return to indie status while maintaining your reputation, and distribute digitally.

Shh... you're pretty.
CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 03:46
Okay, so what is the article actually about?

Video games are too violent....nyehh, but there's Harvest Moon for the squeamish, so there you go.

Porn is bad...nyeehh also, I think the majority of the internet would disagree.

Big companies have no imagination...okay, fair point. I still hold that you just have to look in the right place. For me personally, I have Metro: Last Light to look forward to, Halo 4 - which I know will start some sort of arbitrary argument or other - and maybe Sleeping Dogs...

Why did I put Halo in there? Well, I've been a fan since Halo CE on the PC, it was my first FPS just before Half Life. I've bought, played and enjoyed every game since. I've split screened with friends, then moved to games over Live. It's a series with a flavour of gameplay, story and suchlike that I've come to enjoy very much. For me, it isn't bland.

Metro: Last Light is another people who haven't played claim is another CoD rip-off. It very much isn't, the atmosphere of 2033 was simply smothering, and so rich to delve through IMO. It carried a lot of stuff I'd secretly wished for in Fallout, the sense that the world was gone, and the sad note alongside that.

But people all jump on the "happy slap CoD" bandwagon, ignoring good developers like Bethesda, Bioware, Valve, 4A, Bungie, and so many others.

Do people just bash best-selling games here for the sake of it?
Libervurto
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 04:01
As you mention Call of Duty, I think that's a very interesting game to bring into the discussion. CoD has become a synonym for everything stale about the games industry, yet it continues to break sales records with every release. Following my previous post, I'd say that in fact it's the sales success that is responsible for the stagnant nature of the series rather than sales being in-spite-of the stagnation.

This makes it even more interesting when you consider the uncharacteristically futuristic direction of the upcoming Black Ops II. This is exactly the kind of gamble I said big companies don't take so it will be interesting to see what happens with regards to sales figures.

Shh... you're pretty.
Aaron Miller
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 04:04 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 04:08
Digital distribution becomes a bit hairy with 6GB~ games getting downloaded (or games like Rage, which are 25GB~). With these sorts of games, there's so much art packed into them that it's more convenient for many to just have a DVD/BD on hand. They (the users) can just plop their disc into the computer for installation. Most serious gamers will likely have a decent internet connection, but that's not always the case. Sometimes there are no decent connections available where you live. That's the case for me. My connection is mediocre at best. (If I'm lucky, I might reach 325KB/s down speed.) There's nothing I can do about it except for move, but that's way costly just for a different connection speed. It's often more convenient for me to go to a store and buy a game, or to have it shipped to me if not in stores. That's what I did with Rage.

Still, I'm in the minority. Digital distribution is probably more appealing to the majority of people than having to deal with the physical discs.

About the AAA games: I'm annoyed that I always have to be connected to the internet to play a few of them. And that I have to be connected to the internet to even install them in the first place. For some games you only need to be connected to the internet when you launch the game, but not during play (I think). That's not the case for any of the indie games I've played (like Minecraft). (Though, for Minecraft, the internet is required to obtain it... But that's beside the point.) But, I'd rather play an FPS made in CryENGINE 3, Frostbite 2, id Tech 5, etc., than some indie engine. Every indie engine FPS I've played has been horrible. I haven't tried out any made in UDK yet though. Those ones might be better due to the underlying infrastructure.

One of the things I like about indie games is they tend to work on old hardware of mine, like my laptop. Most AAA games don't, because they can't be bothered to support it. That's a shame because upgrading hardware is expensive and often not justifiable for me, or many of those I know.

That's what I like about consoles. You get them, and all the games released for them work. (Well, some of them are hacked together, but they run at least.) Especially PS2 era games. No dealing with firmware updates. No dealing with internet connections or gamer accounts. None of that. That is what I want to see in a console. Not something made for indies. Not something made to keep pirates out. Just something that works with minimal hassle.

But I digress. My point is that indie games tend to suck more than AAA games, but they at least work. If AAA games keep crippling themselves, we'll just be left with mediocre games that never actually improve. (They might make bug fixes, but they won't become more aesthetically pleasing in a significant way.) A few might, but the majority won't. At least, that's how I view it.

Virtual Nomad
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Dec 2005
Location: SF Bay Area, USA
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 04:14
i tried reading through this convoluted thread and all i can think of is:



oh, and porn, too.

Virtual Nomad @ California, USA . DBPro V7.7
AMD Phenomā„¢ X4 9750 Quad-Core @ 2.4 GHz . 8 GB PC2-6400 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 3650 @ 512 MB . Vista Home Premium 64 Bit
Thraxas
Retired Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Feb 2006
Location: The Avenging Axe, Turai
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 11:06
If there's poor spelling and grammar it's his teacher's fault. In fact all of societies problems are because teachers are lazy, underworked and overpaid!

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 11:50
Quote: "t's not even a question of innovation, but of branding. If you make a game that's successful you'll forever be associated with that game, and you'll be stuck with a fan-base who were attracted by that specific title and that specific type of game. From then on you are bound by certain expectations of what your future games should be, and making too many radical changes to your "winning formula" could produce a game that your current fan-base has no interest in. "


I think this is the case should you do a series of games. CoD will be CoD, Zelda will be Zelda, Gran Turismo will be Gran Turismo, Grand Theft Auto will be Grand Theft Auto. I think in a series radical change is pointless, because radical change is turning it into a different game, so it might work better as a different game or as a spinoff. Imagine if Christopher Nolan does a 4th Batman film and instead of hiring Christian Bale as Batman and continuing with the style he's gone for, but taking the same story progression he hires Adam West and makes Batman 4 like the old series. Yes, I'd find it absolutely hilarious (I love Adam West), but it'd be such a radical change that it's a different movie altogether and would annoy fans, because they're not following the series to watch Adam West cheesiness.

But for games within the company, I don't think they have to stay the same. I mean Bioware didn't just stick to Dungeons and Dragons games like Neverwinter Nights & Baulder's Gate. Square Enix isn't just about turnbased JRPGs. Capcom isn't just about zombie survival. Valve isn't just about an FPS fighting interdimensional beings. Blizzard isn't just about RTS games. Lionhead wasn't just about Fable. Nintendo isn't just about Mario. Sega isn't just about Sonic. Sure companies may have their flagships and heck, even mascots, but they don't have to be the focus nor does the genre or gameplay.

Quote: "I think the value of grammar is actually a really interesting discussion,"


By all means, I think it's valuable. I write, so I find it very valuable.

Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 12:15
Quote: "underworked and overpaid!"


Overpaid... where do you come from...



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Aaron Miller
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 12:46
I could be wrong, but I think Thraxas was being sarcastic.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 12:48
Thraxas is a teacher, so most likely.

Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 12:58 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 12:58
Aoo, I had the feeling he might have been sarcastic, but I wasnt sure :3



Whose eyes are those eyes?
xplosys
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Jan 2006
Playing: FPSC Multiplayer Games
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 15:16
Quote: "But the lack of grammar and spelling is a very good indicator on overall quality. I mean look at the whole point of this article. There's nothing original about it."


This. In fact, the way the article jumps around and seems to be pieced together, I'd say a lot of it was copied from other articles. There was nothing in there I haven't already read, didn't know, or haven't heard about. Certainly there are better articles to reference.

It's a poorly written article that's poorly written. I'm not much better so I don't publish articles. Kudos for the effort, though.

@Thraxas.
Let's not forget the "no idiot left behind" and "shooting for mediocrity" effect. At some point it had show up.

Brian.

!retupmoc eht ni deppart m'I !pleH

bitJericho
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 15:29
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 15:40 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 15:42
The only game I have that is aimed at violence is Unreal Tournament. Personally, I have an issue with violence in games. When my company went Paint-balling I refused to go, because you are aiming guns at real people. If you break the computer games down into parts, and compare them to TGC newcomers. "I want to make a FPS."...

"I want to make a FPS."

1/ Make your characters.
2/ Animate your characters.
3/ Make weapons for your characters.
4/ Make a mesh landscape.
5/ Make a nozzle flash.
6/ Position the nozzle flash.
7/ Make a sight.
8/ Calculate the bullet trajectory.
9/ Add blood, and gore
10/ Add a scoring system.

What is missing from that is originality, and a game idea. You don't need to come up with a new game idea.

Game ideas list taken from historic games...

1/ Pong
2/ Space Invaders
3/ Manic Miner
4/ Pacman
5/ Defender
6/ Monkey Island
7/ Elite
8/ Ghosts and Goblins
9/ Rtype
10/ Half Life
11/ Unreal Tornament
Infinity/ FPS

A nice progression until you get to FPS, and then the games industry stagnates. Everything becomes FPS apart from the odd game. Limbo etc.

But Limbo gets much acclaim for originality, and people watch the Indi Movie, and Halo gets attacked. Infinity/ FPS. That's why Halo gets attacked.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 16:18
Quote: "
A nice progression until you get to FPS, and then the games industry stagnates. Everything becomes FPS apart from the odd game. Limbo etc."


I disagree, out of the modern games on myself, only 2 are FPS (I had more, but traded them in), 4 if you count Portal 2 & Mirror's Edge, but they're really just first person games. Though, fair enough if you wanted, you could use a gun in Mirror's Edge if you stole it, but it's not the object of the game. The majority of games I actually play are RPGs. Granted, there's a lot of FPS games out there and not many of them are too different from one and another, but I wouldn't argue that FPS games dominate the industry.

Quote: ""I want to make a FPS.""


This might be the case of FPSC users, but then FPSC will obviously attract an FPS crowd. But looking at the WIP boards here, on the front page:
10 apps
1 MineCraft Clone
4 RPGs
5 FPSs
1 RTS
1 Skateboarding Game
3 Racing/Cars
1 Beat-em up
2 Science Simulators
4 Puzzle Games
1 Sim
1 Tower Defense
1 Third Person Shooter
4 Retro/Arcade Games
1 Action

So I think there's variety in what people want to make. FPS games are popular, but not overbearingly so.

CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 16:26
Half Life and Unreal Tournament aren't FPSs?

I'd love my company to bring us to play paintball as well. :/

And again, I'm a more-or-less all FPS player, and I can attest that there's drastic differences between Halo, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Unreal Tournament, Half Life, Team Fortress 2 and Metro 2033.

A lot of the people who bash FPSs for lack of originality also state they aren't fans of the genre or of violence, like yourself Pincho.

It's somewhat irrelevant to point out as a result. I mean, I hate Viva Pinata, and racing games bore me. Racing games are more stagnant than a marsh...in fact, every sports game is horrifically stagnant because they've run out of features and the sport they're based on never changes.

Heck, at least CoD throws in a couple of new guns and toys with each release. What does Forza do other than up the poly count and add a few new cars/tracks? Other genres are just as bad.

MMOs are 99% like-WoW-but-with-X. RTS all seem to follow the roughly similar roots. Heck, even fantasy RPGs are all set in the "kinda English setting based on Tolkien, might be Hertford."

People bash FPS games, but every other genre out there is just as dry on the new ideas.
bitJericho
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 16:40
Quote: "Racing games are more stagnant than a marsh"


What?? Obviously I can tell you're not a race sim fan

CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 16:44
Well, I used to play Gran Turismo 3 a lot, and a bit of Forza 2.

I just can't tell where they've added significant amounts of stuff, other than tuning and buying parts.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 16:46 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 16:58
Quote: "Half Life and Unreal Tournament aren't FPSs?"


The first ones are allowed to be original ideas, someone had to come up with them. Most people now come up with zombies. The first zombie movie was B/W.. it's old. I'm not including Carnage, it has originality in the traps, and it has thought behind it.

My main issue is with.. copy another game that already has 10 clones, combined with.. just shoot.

CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:04
Wolfenstein and Doom pre-date HL and UT... :/

Quote: "My main issue is with.. copy another game that already has 10 clones, combined with.. just shoot."


Replace shoot with...

Grind: MMOs

Drive: Racing games

Zerg rush: RTSs

Hit stuff: Hack 'n' Slashes

Hit stuff with sword/arrow/magic: fantasy games

If you deliberately overlook what a game does to differentiate itself, and simplify to a sentence, then it will obviously be the same as everything else.

I mean, what sorta FPS are you hoping for?
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:11 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 17:12
Quote: "I mean, what sorta FPS are you hoping for? "


A Neural Network one where you train you soldiers for example. Say you had a Red army, vs a Blue army. They are fighting over a Tron-Like stage. There are Robot Tanks learning, and evolving, and your soldiers are learning how to survive. The soldiers find weapon parts (not whole weapons), and the soldiers have to figure out how to put the parts together to make say a gun. You have to train your soldiers how to put parts together, and how to recognise how they work.

Now that I have posted an example, it moves from Unreal Tournament progressively, and doesn't stop with another version of the same thing.

CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:18
Hmmm, sounds a bit like Minecraft PvP. In that it's a primarily FPS view, is built on the concept of using ingenuity and adapting your surroundings to gain advantages over enemies. Using materials to create weaponry and systems for defense/offense.

It also sounds a bit like an update TF2 just released, that adds a Mann vs Machine mode. I've spent 99% of my time playing it just training people how to play! xD

It has the ability to select custom weapon loadouts, and then buy upgrades based on robots killed to augment weapons. It also has tanks.

So your idea is somewhat like a TF2 free to play update, only with Tron-esque visuals, (custom map,) and self-manufactured weapons.

So, as I said, originality is bloody difficult my friend.

Unless you were talking about training AI? That would be irritating. I think if you ask any online FPS player, you spend most of your time using trash talk to "train" your team anyway, and most of them don't react kindly to being told how to play, even politely.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:23 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 17:27
Quote: "Unless you were talking about training AI? That would be irritating."


Yes training AI as a manager. Then the rest is more like a movie, and you are the Director, because you have directed the actors. Imagine Bruce Willis in Die Hard, but you have trained him, and you don't know how the movie will end.

CoffeeGrunt
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Oct 2007
Location: England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:26
Hmmm...

I admit, it would be fairly unique and fun, but wouldn't it also be a bit more akin to an RTS? Given your role as an omniscient commander?

Also, as a programmer you'd have to understand that writing learning AI would be incredibly difficult, and possibly quite resource-intensive, too.

And a last point...many players will gripe for eons about a game with lackluster AI. Adding in lackluster AI and then telling the player they must teach them how to play...I dunno, it could either take off or flop horribly. All in the execution.

It wouldn't appeal to the mass demographic, though, and definitely sounds like a game better suited to PC than consoles.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:28
This is the closest comparison. The training is to be performed in sessions, and some of the training would be fighting, some for weapon making, some for agility etc...

http://megaswf.com/simple_serve/102223/

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:35
And Pincho mentioned Monkey Island, there's loads of point and click adventures out there, I think the genre had a good progression. I quite liked The Longest Journey, in fact it inspires a game idea (Shadow Behind the Leaves). Heck, Monkey Island wasn't original. It was funny, it had an interesting story and was fun to play. There are clones in the genre, but I don't think it makes good point and click games lesser.

But there are FPS games that set each other apart and make more of an impact. There's not actally a lot of distance between the old SCUMM point and click adventures. Monkey Island (1990) isn't even original. Maniac Mansion predates it (1987). But still, MI is an awesome game.

I'd probably say the difference between Borderlands and Deus Ex: Human Revolution is much greater than the difference between Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle. What made P&C so interesting was not the difference in game play, but the characters and stories that made them. With the 2 FPS titles I mentioned, the only similarity I would give them is that you can point and shoot. But how you play them is very different.

As Coffee rightly points out, every genre suffers from clones, but there's games that are able to set themselves worlds apart from one and another.
RPG - Final Fantasy vs Skyrim
MMO - Eve vs WoW
FPS - Borderlands vs Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Racing - Wipeout vs Gran Turismo
RTS - Command and Conquer vs Shogun: Total War
Platform - Mario vs Sonic the Hedgehog
Hack n Slash - Devil May Cry vs Nier

And you get the idea.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 17:40 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 17:43
You miss the point. Monkey Island games are always unique. You have to solve puzzles, and the puzzles are always unique. FPS is always point a gun, and shoot, or throw a grenade. There is no change in game-play. Unreal had get the flag, and other elements, but a lot of the army games are the same. They are the same game, the same puzzle, but different graphics.

bitJericho
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 18:02 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 18:10
There's been a lot of improvements in racing games. Forza and Gran Turismo are about as generic and shiny as it gets.

Play Grid. Watch out for Grid 2 coming next year. racer.nl has been around a while but as hardcore simulations go you can't do better. Insane 2 is crazy fun but not quite as good physics-wise as the original insane. It offers splitscreen on the same PC which is not very common. Grid was pretty different as they have a rewind option, accurate damage modelling on licensed cars, many different styles of racing, from destruction derby to f1 racing. Burnout Paradise for an arcady open city. Test Drive Unlimited for an almost mmo style racer. Even gta5 could be considered a decent racer when you go online and that almost could draw parallels with a game like interstate 76 and the games that came after it, battle racing.

So yeah there's been a lot of new things in racing sims the last 5/10 years, a lot of refined things, and heck some stagnation too. I think we've come a long way though since the days of Viper Racing, which can still hold up today as a definitive realistic racer, maybe even a genre definer.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 18:09
But your assessment of FPS games isn't strictly true. What was the last FPS game you played? It's like saying, all you do in Monkey Island is point a cursor at objects and click on them.

If you're thinking of Left4Dead (you mentioned zombies), its game mechanics are: run to the safe house alive - zombies will run at you, therefore shoot. That's probably closest to the kind of gameplay you describe, but it's main purpose it to be a zombie survival game, so you've got guns, you've got hordes of zombies and you're supposed to survive them.

Borderlands? Yes, you shoot and kill, you also earn money, you can buy better weapons, you've got a nice selection of weapon choices, you've got vehicles you can drive in to get from A to B, sometimes you have to fight other vehicles, missions may require you to kill something specific or to acquire an items. Certain bosses may require different methods of killing them, you've got a levelling up system, so you can customise your character and pick out their biggest strengths.

You can approach an area in a number of different ways, you can go in like a brute and guns blazing and shoot everything. You can be more stealthy and finding a vantage point and snipe everybody out, you could go in stay behind cover and take out foes one by one. Or you can just mix it up. There's varieties of enemy types and they're not all coming at you at once, you meet new ones as you progress. There's also a plot line to follow and your missions are centered around that plotline. Different areas can pose different advantages and weaknesses, so if you prefer 'guns blazing', you might find your enemies have lots of cover, so you adjust.

The guns you choose, they can possess different kinds of attributes, it's not as just clear cut as "shotgun", "pistol", "machinegun", because you might have 2 shotguns, but they offer completely different functionality and may exploit different weaknesses in an enemy. So when you're collecting your weapons you'll choose a load out that best fits your strategies and best fits the kind of foes you're up against.

The level designs offer a bit more variety so you don't get bored of the game play as you go through and you're faced with different kinds of challenges.


So it's not really, "point, shoot, throw grenade". There's a lot to Borderlands that differentiates it from a game like Left4Dead.

Solving puzzles in Monkey Island is not that different from solving puzzles in other P&C games. It's always "use this item with that item" or "give this item to this person" and whilst they are great games to play, but if the criteria you're using to judge FPS games to be the same was applied to P&C games, then they too are all the same. But I know they're not (and I love the genre). Broken Sword is not the same as Beneath a Steel Sky.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 18:12 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 18:15
Quote: "What was the last FPS game you played?"


Uncharted.. shoot or throw a grenade. The things in your post aren't ideas, they are taken from everyday life. vehicles, gun choices.. they aren't ideas. I can look out my window, and see vehicles, I can watch a movie, and see gun choices. Nobody had to think of them.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 18:42
So all you've taken from my post is:
Choices of guns and vehicles.

That wasn't 3 paragraphs of guns and vehicles. What about the talk of strategies and variety in mission types? Enemy types? Variety in bosses and how to beat them? Variety in play style? What about the points about character progression? About advancing stats? I also talked about variety in level design and how you adapt your playstyle based on your surroundings.

Heck, gun variety (and seriously, there's a lot of variety in guns) means you've got to think about what you're using to take an enemy down. Different enemies have different strengths and weaknesses, so you've got to think about that. In a normal shooter you might think: Shotgun for close range, sniper for long range, assault rifle for mid range, pistol when there's few enemies about. But in Borderlands you're also thinking about other attributes, such as ammo capacity, rate of fire, type of ammunition (it could cover them in acid, or set them on fire, electrocute and so on).

Why are these alternatives important? If you're fighting tough enemies, you'll want the best method of taken them down and that can vary enemy to enemy. For example, acid is good to eating through armor, electrocution is good for stunning and is effective to things like humans, fire is good for wearing them down.

Arguably, Borderlands has more going for it than say, Half Life or even Unreal Tournament. Heck, Borderlands has fighting arenas.

Quote: "Uncharted."


Not played it, but isn't that a third person shooter/adventure?

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 18:47 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 18:50
Quote: "So all you've taken from my post is:
Choices of guns and vehicles.

That wasn't 3 paragraphs of guns and vehicles. What about the talk of strategies and variety in mission types? Enemy types? Variety in bosses and how to beat them? Variety in play style? What about the points about character progression? About advancing stats? I also talked about variety in level design and how you adapt your playstyle based on your surroundings.

Heck, gun variety (and seriously, there's a lot of variety in guns) means you've got to think about what you're using to take an enemy down. Different enemies have different strengths and weaknesses, so you've got to think about that. In a normal shooter you might think: Shotgun for close range, sniper for long range, assault rifle for mid range, pistol when there's few enemies about. But in Borderlands you're also thinking about other attributes, such as ammo capacity, rate of fire, type of ammunition (it could cover them in acid, or set them on fire, electrocute and so on).

Why are these alternatives important? If you're fighting tough enemies, you'll want the best method of taken them down and that can vary enemy to enemy. For example, acid is good to eating through armor, electrocution is good for stunning and is effective to things like humans, fire is good for wearing them down.

Arguably, Borderlands has more going for it than say, Half Life or even Unreal Tournament. Heck, Borderlands has fighting arenas.

Quote: "Uncharted."

Not played it, but isn't that a third person shooter/adventure?"


Well I thought that you would fill in that the rest aren't game ideas, and save me some time posting a reply to all of it.

Yes it's a 3rd person shooter. I used FPS as an example of shoot, and throw a grenade, but other genres also have that. I am talking about the games creators coming up with ideas. You talk about real life like it is a creative idea. Hide, duck cover, are not game ideas.

A pack of cards is just a pack of cards, but there are probably 1000 game ideas. They have to be worked out. Nobody has to work out "We could make a game where you wake up, and eat breakfast, and watch TV!"

That's the same in these zombie games, and army games. You are surrounded, so shoot, duck, cover, throw a grenade. That's just normal if you were in these situations.

Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 18:53
Quote: "Borderlands? Yes, you shoot and kill, you also earn money, you can buy better weapons, you've got a nice selection of weapon choices, you've got vehicles you can drive in to get from A to B, sometimes you have to fight other vehicles, missions may require you to kill something specific or to acquire an items. Certain bosses may require different methods of killing them, you've got a levelling up system, so you can customise your character and pick out their biggest strengths. "


Borderlands - one of the most booring games I've yet to play... Got a bit more fun with a friend but....

It was very tedious, storyline was utter crap - only nice thing about the game was really "Dr. Zed" but he's only around for the first few hours... Car driving in that game is COMPLETLY shoe. It's the worst driving experience i've had in a game. Boss fights are ok, but varies little.
Gameplay itself is generic RPG with a shooting vibe - go to this area, kill these enemies, find these stuff, investigate that, gain xp - items - loot, advance the "story" further, meet tougher enemies.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 19:06 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 19:12
Of course they're ideas, they're all ideas that make up the game. The purpose of the game? You are hunting a treasure hidden inside of something called the Vault and the vault is on a planet of criminals, thugs and dangerous alien life forms. You are competing against an army called the 'Crimson Enclave'. The idea is to beat them to it. You have missions and objectives to complete, as there are things that will get in your way before hand. To complete those objectives there are various enemies you have to get through and work through various gameplay mechanics (many of which I've already described), it depends on your environments, enemies and missions. Each missions is designed. Bosses are thought out in such a way that a player has to figure out the best way to take them down, it's not necessarily spelled out to them. So the boss fights? They require the developers to have ideas. Each of the game mechanics has required the developers to think and have ideas. It's not as if they went: "this is the FPS model, lets use it", because they had to come up with their own ideas to make Borderlands different to say...Half Life. Sure, it's not a completely original game, very few games actually are. Monkey Island and Half Life for instance. You say puzzles are always new, but there's only one mechanic to them, you figure out how an object is related to another objects or item or what conversation item is best to choose. Heck, some of them are pretty obvious, I need to talk to a parrot? There's a parrot cracker. So I use crackers to talk to a parrot? Bingo. Granted, the rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle was a great way of mixing it up.

But I don't see how having a variety in how you solve puzzles is any different to have a variety in how you defeat bosses? But apparently one has game ideas whilst the other doesn't.

Quote: "Borderlands - one of the most booring games I've yet to play... Got a bit more fun with a friend but....

It was very tedious, storyline was utter crap - only nice thing about the game was really "Dr. Zed" but he's only around for the first few hours... Car driving in that game is COMPLETLY shoe. It's the worst driving experience i've had in a game. Boss fights are ok, but varies little.
Gameplay itself is generic RPG with a shooting vibe - go to this area, kill these enemies, find these stuff, investigate that, gain xp - items - loot, advance the "story" further, meet tougher enemies."



Granted. But was it like every other FPS game out there? For arguments sake, are Half Life and Borderlands alike? Or heck, Call of Duty and Borderlands. Does Borderlands attempt to use different ideas in the FPS genre, whilst not necessarily being completely original or by your argument, interesting? I guess what I'm really asking is, does it best fit Pincho Paxton's description of the FPS genre?

But as for boss fights, would you say the Rakk Hive and Sledge are similar fights? Or the Destroyer and Krom?

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 19:10 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 19:23
Quote: " But I don't see how having a variety in how you solve puzzles is any different to have a variety in how you defeat bosses? But apparently one has game ideas whilst the other doesn't."


In your first example you only have to change the words, and words aren't game ideas. In monkey Island variations you actually have to change the puzzles, and puzzles are game ideas.

Quote: "You are hunting an Evil Emperor living inside of something called the Castle and the Castle is on a planet of Animals, thugs and dangerous alien life forms. You are competing against an army called the 'Salvation Army'. The idea is to beat them to it. You have missions and objectives to complete, as there are things that will get in your way before hand. To complete those objectives there are various enemies you have to get through and work through various gameplay mechanics (many of which I've already described), it depends on your environments, enemies and missions. Each missions is designed. Bosses are thought out in such a way that a player has to figure out the best way to take them down. Then you shoot, and throw grenades. "


Monkey Island evolved into games like Puppet Show with more creative puzzles...
http://www.shabugames.com/Images_B/en_puppetshow-lost-town-collectors-edition/screen2.jpg

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 19:32
And boss fights aren't game ideas? Then what are they? Flick through boss fights through various games and there's all sorts of ideas, some original, some less so, heck some can be pretty generic (but so can puzzles to be fair, I'm sure 'give parrot cracker to parrot' wasn't much of a strain as far as ideas go). But none the less, these boss fights are ideas created by the game designer.

In the case of generic fights it is just picking an idea already done. But should you wish to you can take the concept of a boss fight and use your own ideas to make it different, think about it and apply it. To my mind, a really good boss fight will have you thinking and will have you on your feet and will take more than simply shooting at them to take them down. I also think the weaknesses shouldn't be obvious, so finding weaknesses becomes a part of the challenge. Boss fights don't appear without thought, they require for people to come up with ideas, just like you would with puzzles. Heck, some bosses out there require you to solve puzzles anyway.

But even with generic boss fights, you've gotta admit, it's not just "throw grenade, aim and shoot" as you suggested (sure, it may be the case of some FPS games out there) and the FPS Borderlands, regardless of whether or not you think it's a great game, it's not just "throw grenade, aim and shoot", as you had claimed FPS games were. There's more to it and there's more thought behind the gameplay than you imply. Of course, it doesn't necessarily make it good or something you enjoy playing. Personally, I enjoyed Borderlands, I used it as an example as it's an FPS I liked, but there are other, perhaps better examples out there.

Quik
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jul 2008
Location: Equestria!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 19:47
Quote: "Granted. But was it like every other FPS game out there?"


No, but I cant say that Half life and Cod are the same either. Neither is BF and Cod.
Theyre all different, and does something differently. Saying all FPS are the same is very naĆ­ve. by that standard, Two worlds II and Gothic 3 is the same.

no, Borderlands isnt "like every other FPS out there" but then you must take into it that it's a co-op based RPG shooter.Not a striaght up FPS.



Whose eyes are those eyes?
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 20:02
Aye, I generally saw it as an FPS with some RPG elements. It's one think that to my mind makes it different, but of course like many other games out there, the developers had their own ideas and their own mechanics. It might not be great, heck, it might not even completely original, but none the less, FPS games aren't stagnant. I tend to think it depends on the game you're playing. Some try to clones or others, whilst other try and do what feels right for them within the genre. I would not rank Borderlands in as one of the clones nor would I consider to be a genius of video gaming.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 20:09
So long as the Games Designers of Borderlands actually thought about their game that is fine. That's all I am talking about. Think about new games ideas. Evolve the current situation.

Space Invaders to Pacman is a steep slope. The slope is getting flat.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 20:33
I think a part of the problem there is so many ideas have been done before that it becomes harder and harder to come up with new ideas. With that, there's of course the need for a game to be a commercial success and I think that can get in the way too, which is a shame IMO. But an original idea isn't necessarily a good idea.

I'm not sure if the slope will ever get flat, at least not unless we give in and only play clones. It might make it harder to excited about new games and to be honest, I don't get excited that often. Maybe it's up to us indies and hobbiests to prototype new ideas and try different things. I think that's what people kinda expect indies to do. I don't think it's an indie exclusive thing, but I think that's the expectation at least.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 21:18
I still have ideas anyway, and I've worked as a commercial games designer. I have ideas for games, movies all sorts.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 21:49
Yes, that's the annoying thing, loads of ideas, but only a limited ability to bring them to fruition.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 22:43 Edited at: 22nd Aug 2012 22:44
Quote: "Yes, that's the annoying thing, loads of ideas, but only a limited ability to bring them to fruition."


Too many, not enough time, that's why I just throw the ideas out there. Hopefully get this flat line tilting up again.

Aaron Miller
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 22nd Aug 2012 23:30
Quote: "that's why I just throw the ideas out there"

You might like GameIdea.org. It's a website a friend of mine recently started for people who want to share their game ideas simply so they're heard. If that's appealing to you, you might like to take part in it.

----

To be honest, I'm not sure how we would go about "improving" or "innovating" game design. I haven't much experience in the design department. However, from a consumer's point of view, I don't see true innovation anywhere (indie or AAA). I've seen "odd" ideas, like "Lollipop Chainsaw" which isn't very original (at least not to me; it's just a combination of stereotypes and zombies). The only place I actually see innovation tends to be in the technology behind the games. That's why I'm more interested in the engines than the games. (Well... Among other reasons too.) I know a lot of people won't agree with my opinion (likely with good reason too!) but that's just the way I feel about it. Nothing has impressed me for a while, game play/design wise. (When I saw Mario Galaxy I though "Neat! But it looks like it probably overuses the planetary idea." When I saw Rage with the virtual textures I thought "That's cool!" Then I promptly bought the game as soon as it came out. ... Still waiting for id Studio though! Grr...)

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 23rd Aug 2012 00:20
Quote: "To be honest, I'm not sure how we would go about "improving" or "innovating" game design."


OK.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-17 17:49:05
Your offset time is: 2026-07-17 17:49:05