General Stuff #1
Violent Videogames and Shooters - Enough already?
Archive: 90 posts
| So I'd like to get some people's opinions on this. I've been getting serious shooter fatigue the last couple of years. It's such a "safe bet" in the industry right now, we've got FPS and third person shooters coming out left, right, and center. There are some fun twists on the experience like Left 4 Dead, and I'm looking forward to Modern Warfare 2 as much as anyone. At least Modern Warfare attempts to give its violence a real-world context, which is always good. But for the most part, there are great games out there that I believe are somewhat castrated by the fact that they're little more than the same old shooters. Bioshock is one of my absolutely favorite games - favorite because of the incredible setting, atmosphere, story, and intelligence. It's great science fiction. The gameplay, for the most part, is just another FPS. There could be a game like Bioshock that takes place in Rapture BEFORE the fall, in the events leading up to the end. It could be an adventure-mystery game, in first person, requiring you to explore rapture, to talk to the residents, an open-world type of game with RPG elements and little to ZERO violence. There's room to pioneer entirely new genres of gameplay with the kind of power our consoles and computers have now. Give me THAT game. Give me Bioshock-meets-Animal Crossing. These days developers could create an amazing, open world that changes over time, with repercussions for decisions made. The problem is that these games are expensive, so it's too much of a risk to do something totally new on a big budget - the market may not respond well. So, instead it becomes another shooter. There's so much room for excitement and tension in games that doesn't involve violence. I remember an old mystery-adventure game Under a Killing Moon. This was a first-person adventure-myster-thriller in a futuristic noir setting similar to Blade Runner if it had a 1940s aesthetic. There was one point where you're uncovering information and sneaking around in an office patrolled by security bots. While rummaging through the desk drawers in an office, you hear the security bot coming down the hall toward the door - you get behind the desk and hide, peeking out... I remember my heart RACING. The bot does a quick scan and leaves, as you gather your evidence and try to make an escape. You are given no weapons, there is no option to destroy the bot. it's a real game of heart-pounding hide and seek. I'm just really sick of shooters, shooters, shooters. i'm sick of aiming down the sight and trying to get headshots. Heavy Rain's going to be coming out, and it appears to be a spiritual successor to Shenmue, which is a game I really loved (funny enough, the segments I disliked the most in Shenmue were the fighting scenes). I'm looking forward to this a great deal, maybe if it does really well it'll open the doors to more risk-taking games that downplay the violent content, or at least, don't ask you to kill hundreds and hundreds of people with magazine-loaded projectiles. Any thoughts? Anyone with me on this one? | 2009-08-25 23:57:00 Author: Teebonesy  Posts: 1937 |
Couldn't agree more, i got bored of shooters a loongg time ago  I still refuse to buy games like Killzone 2 even though all my friends have been nagging me to get it, dull repetitive shooters have never appealed to me. It's even made me avoid games like mgs in the past thinking they were just another shooter! I wish more developers would focus on things like atmosphere and playing with your emotions instead of just churning out the same old fps game with better graphics. | 2009-08-26 00:12:00 Author: Dexiro  Posts: 2100 |
| At least the PSN and downloadable games elsewhere are a way to experience new games where the developers aren't afraid to take a risk. Flower is one of my absolute favorite games of the last few years. It's a game that's PURE mood, PURE emotion. It doesn't even task you with much of an object. You play the wind in the dream of an imprisoned flower in the city. I mean that's trippy on its own. The execution is just beautiful, a purely emotional experience that taps into some deeply-rooted part of our psyche. An incredibly satisfying experience on an emotional level. Braid was fascinating, that was more a game about form, a bit more intellectual in its pursuit to turn old videogame concepts on their head. But different, beautiful, interesting. Ever play Darwinia? This is on Steam for download now. Incredible game! It's a hybrid of RTS, strategy, cannon-fodder style action, tower defense, and a dash of civilization. All at once. And it actually works pretty well. The whole thing takes place in a computer environment known as Darwinia, a program in which a civilization of AIs are left to evolve. they come to worship the programmer as God, and build a temple that manages to tap into other parts of his computer, where they unwittingly unleash a hellacious virus on their population. Your job is to go in and clear out the population, bring the Darwinia population back up, and get the various operations and programs running again. I'm also a huge fan of Animal Crossing. I'm personally a bit insulted at how they've basically released the same game over and over and over. City Folk? Sorry, can't do it, I've done this already, several times over. Release something new, update this game properly, and I'll return to it. but I'll also be the first to admit that I was a HUGE fan of Animal Crossing. I played that game every day. I loved seeing the town change through the seasons. you become really attached to certain residents of the town, and sometimes when one of your favorite animals moves away, it can be a really sad thing. yes, they have pre-made personalities, but they also get to know you, and you have an effect on them over time. They learn things about you, and they pick up quirks that you're able to assign to them. It can be like losing a friend. The holidays, the seasons, the calmness of the town with its river, forests, and beach, the pursuit of fish, bugs, fossils ,and furniture... It's a satisfying, long-lasting game on so many levels. There's a free game called Passage. It's a tiny little game that has a great 8-bit look. If anyone hasn't played it I recommend it. it's a tiny, short game. I didn't know what to expect out of this little game with the NES graphics. It broke my heart. I had my girlfriend play it and she thought it was very cute at first. Five minutes later she cried her eyes out. Download here (http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/). | 2009-08-26 00:31:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| I love animal crossing! and yes I do also agree that there is too many fps's but I have never have never liked fps's they bore me... Anyway... there are many incredible games that makes you feel the emotion of being there... including an incredible little game called Chrono Trigger! It is incredible the way it really places you in the story. I recomend it incredibly!!!! especially for rpg fans. It has some slight slight slightest elements of Animal Crossing. And even though the characters are scripted they really feel like your friends! It is a true gaming achievement and it's on the DS, the psone and the snes. But it is hard to find in stores... I recomend buying it online. | 2009-08-26 07:45:00 Author: elzbenz  Posts: 86 |
| I got no problem with violent games, but shooters are a pain in the sack -.-* I still think that shooter-games have no soul. It's just that typical sh*t-for-brains game developers kind of thing that has no good dialogue, plot or anything. For example, if some of your buddy dies in a shooter, you won't give a sh*t because a game with no soul will not be appealing in a emotional level! (god, that was a long post) | 2009-08-26 08:16:00 Author: Oerjeke  Posts: 234 |
| I got no problem with violent games, but shooters are a pain in the sack -.-* I still think that shooter-games have no soul. It's just that typical sh*t-for-brains game developers kind of thing that has no good dialogue, plot or anything. For example, if some of your buddy dies in a shooter, you won't give a sh*t because a game with no soul will not be appealing in a emotional level! There's definitely something to be said about games that are nearly 100% violence, which ask you to kill countless people, and to never really particularly CARE. There's a good reason the military loves kids playing these games, and even released their own free online shooter. It's possible to do smart violence in games, Shadow of the Colossus can be described as a violent game. But every act of violence is a major event with profound repercussions, and very few people play that game and don't feel a strong emotional response to the killing of the giants. Anyway... there are many incredible games that makes you feel the emotion of being there... including an incredible little game called Chrono Trigger! Chrono Trigger's one of my all-time favorite games, a real classic. Some of the best music I've heard in videogames too! | 2009-08-26 08:26:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| There's definitely something to be said about games that are nearly 100% violence, which ask you to kill countless people, and to never really particularly CARE. There's a good reason the military loves kids playing these games, and even released their own free online shooter. It's possible to do smart violence in games, Shadow of the Colossus can be described as a violent game. But every act of violence is a major event with profound repercussions, and very few people play that game and don't feel a strong emotional response to the killing of the giants. Well, duh!  No-one like's 100% violence games. I just said that the violence doesn't bother me  | 2009-08-26 08:32:00 Author: Oerjeke Posts: 234 |
| Well, duh! No-one like's 100% violence games. I just said that the violence doesn't bother me Hey man, I was agreeing with you! But I would disagree with the above - I bet you there's a ton of people who would love 100% violence. I think I've met more than my fair share of them in online games. *remembers Halo* *shudder* | 2009-08-26 08:55:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| Hey man, I was agreeing with you! But I would disagree with the above - I bet you there's a ton of people who would love 100% violence. I think I've met more than my fair share of them in online games. *remembers Halo* *shudder* Yeah, but mostly these "purists" (admit it. you chucled) are just some little brats who want to show off because their parents allow him/her play violence games -.-* I've met one of those people... | 2009-08-26 09:04:00 Author: Oerjeke Posts: 234 |
| I don't have problem with violence, since I know it's fiction, and I know the boundaries between games and real life, but... I'm really concerned about the effects on the young gen. I really liked the direction that Team Ninja has taken for Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, removing all the eccessive blood. | 2009-08-26 09:22:00 Author: OmegaSlayer  Posts: 5112 |
| I don't have problem with violence, since I know it's fiction, and I know the boundaries between games and real life, but... I'm really concerned about the effects on the young gen. I really liked the direction that Team Ninja has taken for Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, removing all the eccessive blood. I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever that shooters have an effect on people, ESPECIALLY the younger generations. And shooters moreso than other games - Ninja Gaiden's a good example of videogame violence that isn't going to have a huge effect because it is so stylized, and honestly, how is a badass ninja slicing up demons with a sword going to come into play in real life? Probably not very often. But compare that to the Call of Duty games, to all WWII shooters, to Resident Evil 4 and 5, to Uncharted, to the wealth of online shooters. In all of these games you're tasked with shooting, often with real-world guns, human beings. Granted, in some of these the people are zombies and occasionally monsters, but even the zombies to all appearances are humans - humans that you cause to stop moving by pointing guns at them and firing. In many senses RE5 is worse than the others because you're often firing at people who appear to be little more than crowds of poor ethnic civilians carrying rough tools as weapons. But that's cool, because your grenade launcher will make short work of them, right? There is NO DOUBT that this has a desensitization effect on the player, especially over the long run. I've put a lot of thought into this - There's no doubt in my mind I'd have an easier time now pulling the trigger in a war scenario than I would had I not spent so much time playing these shooters and picking off hundreds of people through my scope. I've been playing shooters since Wolfenstein 3D. I cannot pretend to deny that over these many years, they have affected me, and not particularly in a way I appreciate. The military knows this and recognizes that it's a valuable tool in recruitment and early "training". So we have America's Army, a free online shooter that's of decent quality and that's essentially like every other team-based online shooter out there. I guarantee you the Army LOVES the Call of Duty franchise. It gets kids playing these games, desensitized to exactly the type of violence that might be demanded of them in war - and the more realistic, the more incredible the game is, the greater this effect is. The army wants these games in the hands of young people, the younger the better, and they want them to love it. I think we all remember that gunship level from Modern Warfare. It felt so real. We've seen the footage on the news from these gunships as they mow down people. The game seems to nail the look and feel and action perfectly. And you're doing it, every time you play. Of course we understand that it's a game, we all know that we're not actually killing people. But with person A and person B, one a gamer and one not, put them in a real gunship and ask them to pull the trigger on real people - I'd put money on the gamer being better at it and having an easier time of doing it than the nongamer. The army runs simulations to prepare soldiers for combat. Many of these simulations are little more than immersive videogames. They run a Hummer simulation with a huge wraparound screen, smoke and hydraulics and concussion blasts, with modified weapons that fire blanks but register on the screens. You get out there and do that, knowing they aren't humans you're killing - but later, when you're asked to do it for real, you're far better prepared. Even if we're smart about the violence in our games and know how to file that violence, and know with crystal clarity the difference between the game world and the real world - we should also be honest with ourselves about the undeniable desensitizing effect they have. | 2009-08-26 09:43:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| Time to play Devil's Advocate... I wholeheartedly think there is a place for 100% violent games and and 100% violent game modes. Are you telling me you've never played a death match and enjoyed it? Maybe you haven't enjoyed it, but surely you can see the appeal. I love playing Unreal when I'm in the right mood. Totally the far end of the spectrum, no plot, no characters, no emotion. High-paced, high adrenaline, all your focus on accuracy and timing and reactions. Little tactical or lateral thinking, it's just a buzz. It's fun. The players respawn straight away so why should I feel remorse for their deaths? Oh, that's right, because it's not real  And you've never played a RTS where the entire goal is to conquer you enemies through military force? I never felt any remorse for the "people" in my tanks when they died, as they inevitabley did. Did I feel an emotional attachment to them - no. Would it have enhanced my gaming experience if I did? Not a bit. Does it matter, no. Video games are escapism. I don't wanna play games doing things I can do in real life, I want the fantastic, the exciting and the bizarre. There is a place for violent video games. If every game that was violent tried to ram morals down your throat then that would be awful - "You should be feeling bad when you kill people". Well yeah, I know, that's why I'm doing it on my TV and not in real life. Whilst I'll agree that there is an unnecessay quantity of FPS (especially on consoles with the godawful controller interface - where's my keyboard and mouse support?) but there are also a lot of alternative games out there. Here is my advice to anyone who doesn't like a particular genre of game or (as suggested by some of the posts above) if you've actually chosen to play them to the point of tedium (and really, think about who's fault that is - who sat you down with a controller and forced you play them?). Don't play the games you don't like. Simple. If you're in the mood for highly emotive games, play them. As you've pointed out through several examples above, they exist and they are easy to get your hands on. I really don't understand the problem... I love innovative games, and I agree there are too many generic games out there - it's not just limited to the violent ones, but no one makes you play these games, and the stance that violent games are redundant now that you are bored of them is... Well I'm gonna just go with "silly" | 2009-08-26 09:44:00 Author: rtm223  Posts: 6497 |
| Time to play Devil's Advocate... I wholeheartedly think there is a place for 100% violent games and and 100% violent game modes. Are you telling me you've never played a death match and enjoyed it? Maybe you haven't enjoyed it, but surely you can see the appeal. I love playing Unreal when I'm in the right mood. Totally the far end of the spectrum, no plot, no characters, no emotion. High-paced, high adrenaline, all your focus on accuracy and timing and reactions. Little tactical or lateral thinking, it's just a buzz. It's fun. The players respawn straight away so why should I feel remorse for their deaths? Oh, that's right, because it's not real And you've never played a RTS where the entire goal is to conquer you enemies through military force? I never felt any remorse for the "people" in my tanks when they died, as they inevitabley did. Did I feel an emotional attachment to them - no. Would it have enhanced my gaming experience if I did? Not a bit. Does it matter, no. Video games are escapism. I don't wanna play games doing things I can do in real life, I want the fantastic, the exciting and the bizarre. There is a place for violent video games. If every game that was violent tried to ram morals down your throat then that would be awful - "You should be feeling bad when you kill people". Well yeah, I know, that's why I'm doing it on my TV and not in real life. Whilst I'll agree that there is an unnecessay quantity of FPS (especially on consoles with the godawful controller interface - where's my keyboard and mouse support?) but there are also a lot of alternative games out there. Here is my advice to anyone who doesn't like a particular genre of game or (as suggested by some of the posts above) if you've actually chosen to play them to the point of tedium (and really, think about who's fault that is - who sat you down with a controller and forced you play them?). Don't play the games you don't like. Simple. If you're in the mood for highly emotive games, play them. As you've pointed out through several examples above, they exist and they are easy to get your hands on. I really don't understand the problem... I love innovative games, and I agree there are too many generic games out there - it's not just limited to the violent ones, but no one makes you play these games, and the stance that violent games are redundant now that you are bored of them is... Well I'm gonna just go with "silly" You raise some good points. And i'm not saying that there isn't a place for violence in games - There's certainly always been a HUGE place for violence in movies, books, in every type of media we consume in our spare time. It's a part of life and a bigger part of fantasy, and moreover, it's an exciting part full of adrenaline. So this is what we see a lot of in videogames, it's no surprise at all. I enjoy the hell out of a ton of violent games. I like this recent trend of indy games on xbox live and the psn and steam. We're seeing very interesting takes on games, and an astounding number of these are shockingly nonviolent. It seems that some of those risk-taking videogame auteurs out there may be feeling the same sense of disenfranchisement about where games seem to be right now. And I actually believe that the really impressive shooters, the realistic ones, that present real violence in a real-world context feature violence that's far more desensitizing and possibly destructive than what you might see in a pure deathmatch mode, where there is zero context, and it really feels more like a hyper-violent game of "tag", it's more abstract. Where it gets complex is that these also are often the best games of the batch. you'd be hard pressed to find a better shooter around than Modern Warfare. I thought it was amazing. They're going to keep getting more amazing, and the more real they look, the more damage they're going to do. Do I enjoy playing them? Hell yes, I sure do. Does that disturb me? It's beginning to. And RTS games are interesting to me because as a "leader", a general, you get to click buttons and send other people to do the violence, and you sort of sit back and watch. It's twisted in a way, but it's a whole different ballgame from Call of Duty and Brothers in Arms and all the human-on-human (or even human-on-humanoid) shooters out there. So I'm really referring pretty specifically to fps and third person shooters that are so in vogue right now. The reason I'm getting worked up is because, as a gamer, I feel like I'm being deprived. It's the truth - these shooters are REPLACING games that could be more progressive, that could present something new. We see glimpses of these, but that's all. The man at the top of my developer list is Fumito Ueda. And this is a man who has featured violence in all of his games. But they've also been amazing, complex, emotional experiences. I'm sure that The Last Guardian will probably be my favorite PS3 game. I feel pretty safe in assuming that this early on. the day that Ueda makes an FPS is the day I cry a Chief-Seattle-tear at the state of videogames. Until then, it's whine and moan time! The good news is that I think I'm not alone - I think people all over the place are getting a bit shooter-fatigued, and it may be a few years, but just maybe we're going to see them dwindle a bit, and other game types, possibly new ones altogether, will come to the forefront. Hey, I'm all for saying, "you know what, i'm not going to do MAG, or bioshock 2, or Uncharted 2" etc etc, but at the same time I'm thinking... This is the holiday season. We could be seeing, instead of these games, 3 other triple-A, big-budget games instead. But this is steadfastly where the industry is right now. EDIT: I forgot to mention! you talked about dual-analog sticks being the devil for shooters, and give-me-a-mouse-and-keyboard-any-day-of-the-week. I wanted to kiss you for that one. I'm a real moaner when it comes to dual-analog fps. God does that take a cheese-grater to my nerves. I'm sick of it! I've even tasted a better system on consoles, and that's the Wii. Of course, the really tightly-controlling Wii shooters will have your wrists aching like maniacs after half an hour, so clearly we're not there yet. Maybe these glimpses at Sony and Microsoft's new motion controllers will be a step toward something better than those little diddly sticks we've been wiggling since the N64 came out in '96. But that's a different discussion for a different day. And, coincidentally, a thread I started a while back (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=t=12088)! | 2009-08-26 10:01:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| It seems that some of those risk-taking videogame auteurs out there may be feeling the same sense of disenfranchisement about where games seem to be right now. That would be the main issue I see here, if the risk takers decide that the risks aren't worth taking. Annoyingly, computer games are still not see as art and so indie games studios / individual developers stuggle to get any kind of funding other than from the big companies, and they are all about profits. I'm sure you'd know how easy / difficult (I'm guessing difficult) it is to get arts fundings for independent film etc., but I'm sure it does happen more than in the gaming world, because of the stance of the general public that games are commercial technology, not art. This is a huge contributing factor as to why the big games are often so very similar. Just remembered this I read last week, took a while to find because of the BBC's crap search facility, but: While software developers could turn a profit if a game made it into the top 20, with rising development costs and more platforms to develop on, a game often needs to be listed in the top 10 for publishers to justify any investment. source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8210622.stm). note that article is categorised "Technology", not Entertainment. And I actually believe that the really impressive shooters, the realistic ones, that present real violence in a real-world context feature violence that's far more desensitizing and possibly destructive than what you might see in a pure deathmatch mode, where there is zero context, and it really feels more like a hyper-violent game of "tag", it's more abstract. Where it gets complex is that these also are often the best games of the batch. you'd be hard pressed to find a better shooter around than Modern Warfare. I thought it was amazing. They're going to keep getting more amazing, and the more real they look, the more damage they're going to do. Do I enjoy playing them? Hell yes, I sure do. Does that disturb me? It's beginning to. I find the more realistic ones boring - this officially makes me less of a psycho than you Offtopic slightly, but the "realistic" games are apparently so far from reality of warfare it's quite funny - I'll see If I've still got the refs for an essay I wrote on that a couple of years ago, it's kinda interesting how little us civilians know. But I take your point that it does feel very much real.I've even tasted a better system on consoles, and that's the Wii. Of course, the really tightly-controlling Wii shooters will have your wrists aching like maniacs after half an hour, so clearly we're not there yet. Maybe these glimpses at Sony and Microsoft's new motion controllers will be a step toward something better ... But that's a different discussion for a different day. And, coincidentally, a thread I started a while back (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=t=12088)! Heh, you don't remember my posts in that thread then?  Just give me keyboard and mouse support on the games on the PS3, that's all I ask for, and it's not even that hard to do. | 2009-08-26 13:00:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| I only ever bought one shooter. I've tried demos of others. But if you've played one shooter, you've played them all. | 2009-08-26 13:35:00 Author: DeathJohnson  Posts: 57 |
| The answer is LocoRoco. As soon as I'm done with FF9 man... as soon as possible! And since Patapon 2 is supposedly easier than the first it's very tempting to try that too. | 2009-08-26 17:32:00 Author: BasketSnake  Posts: 2391 |
| I think that making a shooter is easy and people really are buying into it. Therefore this is what you see the most at the store. Personally I feel the genre is quite stale in uninteresting. I'm personally picky with shooters though. I like them a certain way. I just bought Wolfenstein 3D on PSN this week and it is amazing. I never did play the full quality PC version before and it's awesome. The "old schoolness" of it all makes me all jiggy. . | 2009-08-26 17:33:00 Author: RangerZero  Posts: 3901 |
| I agree, I would like a few more game types... Namely RPGs. Man, how I crave an awesome RPG for the PS3 >_< But, as RangerZero said as he just popped up, FPS have been nailed down to a state of being fairly easy to make, and is the most profitable. Yeah... I'd like some different types of games, but... eh, mostly RPGs :/. Sigh... D: | 2009-08-26 17:35:00 Author: RockSauron  Posts: 10882 |
| Folklore is awesome. You can probably find it supercheap all over now so do yourself a favor and play it. | 2009-08-26 17:58:00 Author: BasketSnake Posts: 2391 |
| The games industry has always been a follower of trends, the 80's saw many pac man and space invaders style games, after tetris was released everyone was trying out their own block stacking variations, the 90's was full of 2d/3d platformers trying to be the next mario or sonic, street fighter 2 spawned multiple fighting games, final fantasy 7 brought a decade of jrpgs, coming up to more recent times the phenomenal success of WoW has caused many to try to grab a slice of the mmo market, gta 3 popularised the 3d open world and everyone started trying their own take on it, first person shooters on consoles while they enjoyed some initial success with goldeneye on the n64 it wasn't until halo launched with the xbox that the genre started its march to overkill although it does seem to have calmed down recently as third person with over the shoulder aiming is on the rise. | 2009-08-26 20:35:00 Author: Rabid-Coot  Posts: 6728 |
| That would be the main issue I see here, if the risk takers decide that the risks aren't worth taking. Annoyingly, computer games are still not see as art and so indie games studios / individual developers stuggle to get any kind of funding other than from the big companies, and they are all about profits. I'm sure you'd know how easy / difficult (I'm guessing difficult) it is to get arts fundings for independent film etc., but I'm sure it does happen more than in the gaming world, because of the stance of the general public that games are commercial technology, not art. This is a huge contributing factor as to why the big games are often so very similar. Just remembered this I read last week, took a while to find because of the BBC's crap search facility, but: source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8210622.stm). note that article is categorised "Technology", not Entertainment. That's really the rub. They've struck a chord with gamers - big-budget shooters, both 3rd person and 1st person - are popular, safe bets. That BBC article I don't doubt for a second, it makes perfect sense. Like with lots of perfectly sensible news, it also happens to be depressing as hell. I find the more realistic ones boring - this officially makes me less of a psycho than you Offtopic slightly, but the "realistic" games are apparently so far from reality of warfare it's quite funny - I'll see If I've still got the refs for an essay I wrote on that a couple of years ago, it's kinda interesting how little us civilians know. But I take your point that it does feel very much real.I should clarify a bit - I have no doubt that our "realistic" games aren't simulations of real war. I have a close friend who joined the Marines after 9/11, and he lost many close friends in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm an Army brat myself, my dad's a Gulf War vet. I wouldn't DREAM of suggesting to either of these guys that Call of Duty is the grit, man, it's just like being in the ****. you're not likely to find a Marine who's been out there and will claim that Call of Duty is it, man, that's what it's like out there, man. But these games have an effect. In fact there are psychiatrists who use interactive media to help treat afflicted soldiers who come back from war haunted and broken down. They have war sim software, in first person perspective, which may have even been based on the engine used for Full Spectrum Warrior or some such - that allows the doctor to tweak all sorts of settings and details. the soldier will detail an experience he had in the war that's deeply troubling - an ambush as they drive through narrow city streets. The doctor will then program in the proper weather, conditions, and the soldier experiences it through a VR display. To look at this software in action, you'd think you were in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare a la 1998. The graphics and overall realism in these "sims" are quite low-end, they don't look nearly as realistic as what you would find in a new Call of Duty game. But still they have a profound effect on the soldier and his treatment. Playing a virtual first-person war "game", this is real therapy for real soldiers today. I'm mainly drawing a distinction between something like TF2, in which you shoot cartoons and bright orange blood explodes from them on impact, and which is an abstract game experience with rules and mostly without real context (the "context" in TF2 seems to be corporate war, the small mom-and-pop company versus the big behemoth corporations - but most TF2 players may have never even considered this!) -- And Band of Brothers, which seeks to create an "authentic" WWII experience, and tasks you with shooting phenomenal numbers of German soldiers - real people - who look real and react for the most part realistically when fired upon, based on real battles and real locations and real tactics. Heh, you don't remember my posts in that thread then? Just give me keyboard and mouse support on the games on the PS3, that's all I ask for, and it's not even that hard to do. Ah, yes, I gave myself a refresher course. You and I definitely parted company in the battle for game control. Splitfish has done some really novel things with controllers. Most of their prototypes and ideas seem to have been taken down from their site (maybe they weren't patented, Iunno). I've heard mixed things on their fragfx, but it might be a compromise. Myself, i actually bought those Gamerfreek (or whatever the hell they're called) stick-nubs. They're little nubbins you stick on your sticks. Yeah, I said that sentence. Call it cheating if you want, those nubs don't even get me to normal, man. They don't even get me to normal. But they DO help a little bit. Switching to another controller and playing without them suddenly feels wrong. I agree, I would like a few more game types... Namely RPGs. Man, how I crave an awesome RPG for the PS3 >_< But, as RangerZero said as he just popped up, FPS have been nailed down to a state of being fairly easy to make, and is the most profitable. Yeah... I'd like some different types of games, but... eh, mostly RPGs :/. Sigh... D: RPGs can be AMAZING on the PS3! Isn't it amazing how far we've come? Back on the SNES and the PSX, we were inundated with amazing RPGs left right and center. So many incredible games. Now look! These shooters are LITERALLY REPLACING the amazing RPGs we could have in place of them. I'm picking up XIII on day one, but I want to be on record as saying that I am NOT pleased with Square's increasingly INSANE sci-fi j-pop style. Give me back my FFVI! Give me some more FFIX! That Lifa tree gave me Mana flashbacks. And that's a very good thing. Eternal Sonata's a pretty fun RPG, but I have yet to beat it. Combat gets a bit old after a while. It does support 2-player co-op combat, so it's a fun game to sit down with a lady-friend and play on cold evenings. The games industry has always been a follower of trends I agree that this seems to be where we're at right now. The discussion about RPGs definitely seems to support this - we're at a point where shooters (both fps and ots) seem to be the number 1 most common big sellers. They'll probably be milked until there's nothing left, and then the industry will shift to something new. What that'll be, I don't know. but I think you're absolutely right - it was Halo that suddenly made the shooter a major blockbuster. I consider any of the Half-Life games, whether 1, 2, or either episode - as far superior to any of the 3 Halos. But those games weren't mammoth runaway blockbusters the way Halo somehow became. Halo is to today's games industry what Jaws seems to have been to the 80s film industry. The first major blockbuster, and as a result, we end up with a ruinous mess of a film/games industry as a result. I think this is the first time i've ever actually considered Halo as being so responsible for a wretched turn in the entire industry, but now that I look back on it, it appears to be accurate! | 2009-08-26 22:16:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| To look at this software in action, you'd think you were in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare a la 1998. The graphics and overall realism in these "sims" are quite low-end, they don't look nearly as realistic as what you would find in a new Call of Duty game. But still they have a profound effect on the soldier and his treatment. Playing a virtual first-person war "game", this is real therapy for real soldiers today. This I don't doubt for a second, I've actually just dug out a 4000 word essay I wrote 2-3 years ago entitled The Role Of Fidelity or ?Realism? in Virtual Environments and Serious Games for Training, which was largely based around military sims. I thoroughly enjoyed researching that one, it's a very very interesting topic. Also: Full Spectrum Warrior! That's exactly the game I was thinking of when I wrote that comment earlier, I just couldn't remember the name when I was at work. Yeah the U.S. Army got really screwwed on that one (though not according to their official statements ) | 2009-08-26 22:34:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| I just bought Wolfenstein 3D on PSN this week and it is amazing. The "old schoolness" of it all makes me all jiggy. . I downloaded Doom a few weeks ago and i still think that's one of the best games i've played! And that's without nostalgia I'd never played it before and i was immersed as i would be with most modern games | 2009-08-26 22:57:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| I have to say I totally agree with Teebonsey on this. The blasted FPS genre really IS replacing what could be other, GOOD games. Frankly, Im totally sick of it. Now it's not that I havent played them.... but the ones that I grew up with were things like Doom or Duke Nukem. You VS the demons.... something clearly evil that must be destroyed..... and it was alot of run-n-gun, chaotic action. Nowadays? Ugh. It's been a LONG time since I've touched the genre. It's sorta number one on my "most hated" list, and I just never buy them. First of all, they're bloody BORING. I could handle the run-n-gun style just fine. It worked well with my approach to most combat situations in gaming, which is "rush at it". If rushing at it doesnt work, then I..... well, I rush at it again. This of course doesnt work in FPS games. I remember trying out Halo 2 online. Ok, lets go!!! *sniper* ....ok, that's annoying, lets try getting over there again..... *sniper* Ooookay, once more with feeling.... *sniper* ....maybe if I just STAND HERE AND WAIT then... *sniper*. And then I quit, basically. It was boring! Not to mention, lately the lack of the "clearly evil thing that must be eradicated". No, nowadays you get things like GTA. Freaking GTA. Yeah, Im of the right "age group" that generally likes that pile of suck. But me? I COMPLETELY DESPISE IT. And Rockstar, for making it. Those morons cant seem to figure out how to sell something if it doesnt create controversy. GTA, to me, almost isnt a game anymore. I can understand games that have violence in them. To make it more realistic, or whatever. But in GTA, the violence becomes COMPLETELY pointless and unnecessary, bordering on "wrong". You can go around and just chop up random citizens with a **** sword. .....what in the bloody hell is the POINT? What does this have to do with anything, gameplay-wise? Im sorry, but this one is just too much. ....and then you get idiots everywhere trying to copy it, make games just like it, because they're too bloody stupid to come up with their own ideas. It just makes me appreciate something like LBP that much more. And dont get me wrong here.... Im definitely of the "hardcore gamer" group. it's what I spend alot of my time doing, and I've got so many games I start to forget which ones exactly I have. It's just that this sort of crap is STUPID. Im just sick of the whole FPS genre, or of anything that in any way whatsoever even remotely sorta KINDA looks like GTA. There, I've had my angry yammer-fest, I'll shut up now.... | 2009-08-26 23:08:00 Author: Bridget  Posts: 334 |
| This I don't doubt for a second, I've actually just dug out a 4000 word essay I wrote 2-3 years ago entitled The Role Of Fidelity or ?Realism? in Virtual Environments and Serious Games for Training, which was largely based around military sims. I thoroughly enjoyed researching that one, it's a very very interesting topic. Also: Full Spectrum Warrior! That's exactly the game I was thinking of when I wrote that comment earlier, I just couldn't remember the name when I was at work. Yeah the U.S. Army got really screwwed on that one (though not according to their official statements )Just curious rtm, are you or have you taken a university course on videogames - Is this where the essays are coming from? I know someone who took a game theory course at UT in Austin. Are these essays of yours online in any capacity? They sound like they'd make for interesting reading to say the least. Im just sick of the whole FPS genre, or of anything that in any way whatsoever even remotely sorta KINDA looks like GTA. I have to say, I'm surprised to come across this viewpoint in a videogame forum, it's so against the grain of what I'm used to seeing! i'm really glad you brought this up, especially GTA, because I'd like to address it... First, I should get out of the way that I personally love the GTA series for one reason: Detail. My favorite thing to do in GTA IV is to take taxicabs around and just look out the window and hope for a rainstorm. I just love it. I'm pretty sure that puts me in the minority of GTA gamers. The open world game can clearly be an impressive force, if it really offers freedom and detail and a believable world. GTA seems to be pretty good at this. There's even something of a variety of "innocent" activities you can participate in, like hanging out with friends, going bowling, seeing shows, playing pool, eating out at restaurants, etc. But now we get into trouble. Because aside from that, the majority of the "freedom" offered to you in GTA is freedom of violence. You're free to do whatever you like! "Really? Can I give money to that homeless man?" "...uuh... no... but you can beat him up with a baseball bat, hammer, police baton, you can stab him to death, box him, kick him, or shoot him with over 22 different guns, including rocket-propelled grenades." "......" "... You can also throw a molotov cocktail at him." "....." "he burns and screams, and then when he dies, his corpse is all black and charred. If you look closely you can see his teeth!" "..... wh..." "His money isn't burned though. You can take his money off his body even if he burns to a crisp." ".....I see. I'm going to go play Tamagotchi Corner Connection Now." Myself, when I play GTA IV for any decent length of time, I can't HELP but get into a car, go into first-person perspective, and mow down sidewalks full of pedestrians. WHY?? I used to be a good MAN!! OOH! Come back here, grocery-bag lady! Thought you could get away from me, did you? YAAAAHHH!!" *thump-tha-thump* "...anyway, where was I? Oh yes... I USED TO BE A GOOD MAN!!!" My point is that developers could easily create a wide open game world with incredible detail and not have the entire experience revolving around disturbing violence - most of which is inevitably focused on innocent bystanders (just try to convince me that you carefully avoided every pedestrian whenever you made a getaway in that game). They could do AMAZING things by bringing a bit of fantasy into a realistic setting and allowing you to EXPLORE. People love their aiming, their pointing and shooting - give them a camera! Explore the city looking for ghosts and doorways into the faerie realm, which can only be seen on developed film! Include a dark room photodeveloping minigame! I don't know! this stuff's off the top of my head! I'd like that game way more than GTA! And I'll be the first to admit that I draw a twisted amount of fun in my GTA killing sprees. When I had a friend over and I introduced the game to him - he had never played ANY GTA before - what I witnessed was horrific. He picked out one innocent guy walking down the street, and decided to make his life a living hell. He beat him, scared him, chased him halfway through the entire city, down alleyways, into parks. The guy tried to hide behind buildings, but Ryan kept pursuing him. I laughed at him, called him evil, pleaded with him to stop, but there was something genuinely disturbing happening in front of me. Eventually Ryan killed him, and there was a silent moment, and I felt like I had witnessed a cat, playing with a dying moth, looking down at the finally-dead thing, and wondering why it no longer moves. This is usually followed by a shrug, and a continuing about of one's day. "What did you do today?" "pretty standard stuff really. Had a good time at Thom's house. I hunted down this short guy with a stupid hat. I didn't like his hat. Anyway, I shoved him around, he tried to stand up to me, but then I pointed a gun at him and he just started running. I chased him around, shoving him down occasionally, it was pretty fun. At one point I got in a car and followed him in that, nudging him, knocking him over, herding him into walls and fire hydrants - you know, the usual. Just to scare him even more I shot some people around him to death. He just kept trying to hide, he did NOT want to die!! Anyway, eventually I stabbed him to death and took his money." "Oh yeah, I did that yesterday. Did the guy have like, a sort of green hat, with flaps over the ears?" "THAT WAS HIM!!" "I killed that guy too!" "The stupid hat right?!" "I HATE that hat!!" | 2009-08-27 02:42:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| First, I should get out of the way that I personally love the GTA series for one reason: Detail. My favorite thing to do in GTA IV is to take taxicabs around and just look out the window and hope for a rainstorm. I just love it. I'm pretty sure that puts me in the minority of GTA gamers. That's the same with me, i love the GTA games but not for the violence Back when i played San Andreas i spent most of my time exploring every inch of the city, finding new things to do and observing the small details that noone was really meant to notice. One my first playthrough i remember spending most of my time trying to make it onto the 2nd or 3rd island before i was allowed to, exploring as much as i could before getting arrested Oh and does anyone ever try driving slowly to keep at the same pace as the other traffic? I don't know why i always did it up it's surprisingly difficult! All that stuff was so much better than mindlessly killing people or watching the shallow story progress. | 2009-08-27 03:26:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| Oh and does anyone ever try driving slowly to keep at the same pace as the other traffic? I don't know why i always did it up it's surprisingly difficult! I did!! I totally did! I'd try to follow the rules of the road, keep up with traffic, obey the traffic lights. Amazingly, for the most part, the world WORKS. The cogs move, it all works. But that being said, they make it VERY difficult to keep it up for very long. It's a challenge in that game to NOT break the law, run people over, smash into other cars, steal vehicles, commit acts of violence, etc. EDIT: Are you SUUURE you never exploited that game's violent tendencies for some disturbing fun? You never went on a killing spree? You never drove a car through Central park, beat up someone who cussed you out on the street, ran over sidewalks full of people? I don't see the issue as being black and white, good and bad, wrong and right, violent or nonviolent, fun or not fun. I'm hideously disturbed by the things I do when I play that game, and I'm even more disturbed by the fact that I have a blast doing them. I'd never be able to do these things in real life - I'd be so horrified I'd probably puke - but the game invites you in, offers you a way to do it and have fun doing it. I can't imagine that this is reasonably a healthy thing for a human being. I think Freud suggested that we have inherent violent tendencies, and we need some "outlets" in order to loosen the valve and blow off steam, but I don't really buy into this. There are truly peaceful people, there are tribes of humans completely unconnected to modern civilization, who don't even have words for "argue" or "hate". Meanwhile, we're over here blowing up innocent civilians with bazookas. | 2009-08-27 04:05:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| I agree with most things here. It's terrible how people are tricked into joining the army, thinking it'll just be like the games. Too many fps games are the same now aswell. When was the last time a new game mode was invented? Most fps games have variations of death matches, running with flags (or other objects), capturing zones or planting bombs and stuff like that. MGS made a few brave moves with more story based gaming (which a lot of people complain about because it's different) and quite inventive online modes with team commands. You're right about GTA's 'freedom' too how you can basically go around the city and kill people in different ways. Fallout 3, however, has much more freedom in my oppinion. The targeing system is pretty unique, you can choose how you look, you can be good or bad you can choose who to kill and it will affect the story, if you talk to someone in it then there's a chance they could offer you a mission or they could sell you stuff etc; you could kill them and take all the stuff for free that they were selling for a price but lose 'karma'; that's why I prefer Fallout 3 to most other free roaming/ fps games. All my friends still just play fps games like they're zombies though, without even thinking about the content; maybe just because 'everyone else does', I don't know. | 2009-08-27 04:10:00 Author: S-A-S--G-U-N-R  Posts: 1606 |
| We are not rare AT ALL. Please do not put GTA in the easy pile of crap and gratuitious violence. GTA looks bad because of the media, because it's extremely popular. Of course it's the scapegoat! GTA is an absolutely genuine piece of software. A very very good games that truly pushed the medium foward. Those who fail to see this simply fail to see what GTA is. GTA is a sandbox action game. Its as much as a racer than it's a shooter. There's also nice stories, it's like your favorite mafia movie translated into a videogame. GTA is not about senseless killing, it's about being believable. It's about freedom. First of all, you have the city. They tried to make it as detailed and believable as possible. If you have a car in real life, you CAN stomp someone --- but you won't because obviously it's not your goal and there's consequences. In GTA if you have a car and there's a pedestrian, you CAN stomp the person but it isn't more your goal and THERE ARE games consequences -- police will try to arrest you. GTA is about what you CAN do. The goal of game isn't "doing everything you can try", it's only to follow the story and do what the story says. It's never about "ok go make a mayhem in the city, kill as much innocent people as you can". GTA is about having "realistic" consequences (contextual to a game world) to your actions as much as possible. And it completely excels at that. GTA completely revolutionised what we call "open-ended" and they when completely new style in regard of mission progression. Since GTA3 taking the world by storm, action games simply changed forever and GOT BETTER. Because yes, GTA simply is a wonderful piece of design. Please also notice that there also good stuff you CAN do only if you want. Just like the bad stuff. You can stomp people with your car but you can also take them to the hospital for points. Of course you can shoot someone but you also can take him where he need to go (taxi). Of course you can beat up someone but you can also hang out with people, play bowling, etc. There's ALOT of positive stuff you can do. I would even go as far as saying your style of play in GTA will actually tell about your personnality. Just like the music you listen, the subjects you are interested too or your favorite types of book. If you only see the violence it really is because you miss the point. You're blinded by the media or what you witness of the game. Personally when I play GTA I have the most fun into tryiong to not break my car and kill the less people as I can. Mayhem and violence isn't what's interesting. It's cool to follow the mafioso style of story, meeting incredible characters, driving is super fun, the great and large envirronement of San Andreas, the immersion of it all, all the "believable" aspect of the different designs. The "good" jobs are also very fun to do. GTA is also a great parody of many things. There's some really funny and tasteful humor in there mocking capitalism, our american society and TONS of clin d'oeil to pop culture and classic movies. No seriously, GTA is genuine sorry. . | 2009-08-27 04:23:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| I agree with you to some extent, but I think you're just exaggerating. You can't just name bad shooters off the top of your tounge as evidence. There are bad rpg's, bad platformers, ect. And not all shooters are as repetitive as you make them seem... Take dead space as an example. It has everything you said you look for from a game from earlier, and more. Ingenius storyline, Great graphics, phenomenal gameplay... Its not even a true shooter. You gotta improvise weapons. Use a torch as a flamethrower, a mining drill as a saw, and the futuristic spin on it is just the icing on the cake. The secondary weapon abilities like mines and more are fantastic, and the triple laser beam sights and rusty looks to the weapons make them look, and shoot amszingly. Well I'm getting off track here and ranting about dead space, but I've made my point. But I do agree games like killzone 2 and resident evil 5 are getting really old. | 2009-08-27 04:51:00 Author: Incinerator22  Posts: 3251 |
| We are not rare AT ALL. Please do not put GTA in the easy pile of crap and gratuitious violence. GTA looks bad because of the media, because it's extremely popular. Of course it's the scapegoat! GTA is an absolutely genuine piece of software. A very very good games that truly pushed the medium foward. Those who fail to see this simply fail to see what GTA is. GTA is a sandbox action game. Its as much as a racer than it's a shooter. There's also nice stories, it's like your favorite mafia movie translated into a videogame. GTA is not about senseless killing, it's about being believable. It's about freedom. First of all, you have the city. They tried to make it as detailed and believable as possible. If you have a car in real life, you CAN stomp someone --- but you won't because obviously it's not your goal and there's consequences. In GTA if you have a car and there's a pedestrian, you CAN stomp the person but it isn't more your goal and THERE ARE games consequences -- police will try to arrest you. GTA is about what you CAN do. The goal of game isn't "doing everything you can try", it's only to follow the story and do what the story says. It's never about "ok go make a mayhem in the city, kill as much innocent people as you can". GTA is about having "realistic" consequences (contextual to a game world) to your actions as much as possible. And it completely excels at that. GTA completely revolutionised what we call "open-ended" and they when completely new style in regard of mission progression. Since GTA3 taking the world by storm, action games simply changed forever and GOT BETTER. Because yes, GTA simply is a wonderful piece of design. Please also notice that there also good stuff you CAN do only if you want. Just like the bad stuff. You can stomp people with your car but you can also take them to the hospital for points. Of course you can shoot someone but you also can take him where he need to go (taxi). Of course you can beat up someone but you can also hang out with people, play bowling, etc. There's ALOT of positive stuff you can do. I would even go as far as saying your style of play in GTA will actually tell about your personnality. Just like the music you listen, the subjects you are interested too or your favorite types of book. If you only see the violence it really is because you miss the point. You're blinded by the media or what you witness of the game. Personally when I play GTA I have the most fun into tryiong to not break my car and kill the less people as I can. Mayhem and violence isn't what's interesting. It's cool to follow the mafioso style of story, meeting incredible characters, driving is super fun, the great and large envirronement of San Andreas, the immersion of it all, all the "believable" aspect of the different designs. The "good" jobs are also very fun to do. GTA is also a great parody of many things. There's some really funny and tasteful humor in there mocking capitalism, our american society and TONS of clin d'oeil to pop culture and classic movies. No seriously, GTA is genuine sorry. . I'll agree with you that GTA is a fun game, and violence in games doesn't really bother me. I was thinking more about IV. They've put in the same bonus missions from the other GTAs (the police one is a bit different) and it's getting a bit repetative. The story didn't have much freedom other than picking between two areas to go to at some points and it wouldn't change the story too much. The activities, easter eggs, exploring and running over 5000 people on a path (fun) is pretty much the limit of freedom though. Of course you can drive slowly and try not to damage it but you can do that in real life. Take dead space as an example. It has everything you said you look for from a game from earlier, and more. Ingenius storyline, Great graphics, phenomenal gameplay... Its not even a true shooter. Exactly it's a survival horror. | 2009-08-27 05:58:00 Author: S-A-S--G-U-N-R Posts: 1606 |
| Of course you can drive slowly and try not to damage it but you can do that in real life. You would be surprised how fast I am in GTA streets. Like mad fast. . | 2009-08-27 06:09:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| I agree with you to some extent, but I think you're just exaggerating. You can't just name bad shooters off the top of your tounge as evidence. There are bad rpg's, bad platformers, ect. And not all shooters are as repetitive as you make them seem... Take dead space as an example. It has everything you said you look for from a game from earlier, and more. Ingenius storyline, Great graphics, phenomenal gameplay... Its not even a true shooter. You gotta improvise weapons. Use a torch as a flamethrower, a mining drill as a saw, and the futuristic spin on it is just the icing on the cake. The secondary weapon abilities like mines and more are fantastic, and the triple laser beam sights and rusty looks to the weapons make them look, and shoot amszingly. Well I'm getting off track here and ranting about dead space, but I've made my point. But I do agree games like killzone 2 and resident evil 5 are getting really old. I had some fun playing Dead Space, but I disagree that it's much different from the rest of the shooters out there now. I think it puts an interesting scifi-horror twist on the genre, but aside from that it's very much just another polished shooter from where I was sitting. Don't get me wrong - I had some fun, it's a solid game with great atmosphere. I even watched the motion graphic novel and saw the crappy movie. I took the full Dead Space plunge, and enjoyed myself. But Dead Space actually perfectly illuminates my point I think - It appeared at first blush that this was something like Alien: the game. A dark, brooding, quiet, horror story in space. What they ended up doing is giving you an arsenal of clever, powerful weapons, and then throwing waves after waves after waves of monstrous nasties at you to dismember and tear apart as you run-and-gun through the game. It's yet another example of a game with a lot of potential that ends up, in the end, to be another shooter at heart - just like Uncharted. During the day of the Lucasarts and Sierra point-and-clicks, both of these games would have been point-and-click adventures. Today, it's the shooter that happens to be in fashion. We are not rare AT ALL. Please do not put GTA in the easy pile of crap and gratuitious violence. I disagree, I think we are rare! I'm glad you're one of "us" - although based on your account, I'd be willing to wager that I've probably spent more time on murder sprees in that game than yourself - but truly my favorite part of the game is the city. I like finding a good dock by the water and just looking around. I like driving around in rainstorms and looking for a place to take shelter, and seeing people running down the sidewalks holding newspapers over their heads. I like getting up on the rooftops and enjoying the view. I love that mission where you get to snipe someone through their apartment window - I wish the whole game was like this - open apartment windows everywhere, the real voyeuristic world that we live in in big cities, everyone living together, crammed between paper thin walls, crowded into thin grocery store aisles. I'd LOVE to see an open-world city game that captures this. GTA only hints at it. Anyway, I'm off-topic here. But here's what I want to stress about GTA... That I really do believe that we ARE the rarer breed with GTA, the gamer who obeys the rules and doesn't murder bystanders and enjoys himself without resorting to violence. Although again, I admit to readily doing all of that stuff as well, and perhaps you're right - what a person does in a "freedom" situation is very telling. My buddy Ryan tormenting someone endlessly is clearly insightful. But again, most of the freedom the game gives you, especially to someone new to it, is freedom of violence. If you want to bowl or play darts to drive cabs or ambulences, you've got to hunt those things down. The violence, on the other hand, is always available to you, no matter where you are in the game. So it's true that it gives you other things to do like taxi people around, drive an ambulence (OUTA MY WAY! *tha-thump thump* I GOTTA RESCUE SOMEBODY!! *tha-thump-crash*), go bowling etc. - and it tells a compelling story with believable characters. I love all this stuff about the game. But in the long haul - by far the game's heart and soul is in violence. Most of the tools you're given are violent. It's hard to drive a car without running people over, for one. At least half of the buttons on the controller cause your avatar to commit violent acts - triangle near a vehicle will steal, carjack, and beat anyone in a vehicle - Circle will attack anyone or anything nearby - you have two buttons to cycle through weapons - a button to aim - a button to lock onto people - and, naturally, a button to fire. Sure you can bowl. Sure you can ferry people to and fro in a cab. But this game, at its heart, urges you to be violent within its world, to enjoy that violence and its repercussions (admit it, running from the cops is almost always a thrill in this game), and I think we're being disingenuous if we assume that the majority of GTA gamers are avoiding violence whenever possible. My own experience playing GTA Online supports this hypothesis. Go into free play mode anytime - perhaps you'll find someone doing some really clever things together, and ignoring all those weapons strewn about. But mostly you're going to see them blowing the crap out of each other. Again, why not, ever since I mentioned it I've really been thinking about this idea and falling in love with it. But here's MY open-world game: Takes place in the near future. Slightly sci-fi feel with a fantasy twist. Some kind of ancient magic is returning to the world. Up here in Liberty City it's all strange rumors in the news, that some sort of magic is springing up in Europe and far to the South and North. But only rumors. For some reason the government has put up walls around the city (heh heh), and are militant about checking people at the walls and checkpoints. They're clamping down, while strange events fill the news. The storm of the century is brewing. The aurora has appeared in the night sky. Something's happening. Early in the game you're just a photographer making ends meet in this city. You go out into the streets, you can go into cafes and stores. You work freelance as a photographer, taking photography gigs. Someone wants a great photo of the city skyline at night with the aurora in the background. So you set out to find the perfect spot for the photo and pass the time until night. You've got your own dark room for developing the photos, and your camera and equipment have detailed controls to manipulate how the photo comes out. As the game and story progress you begin to notice things in the photos that weren't there in person. Strange shadowy figures. Doorways. Alleys. Through the game you can upgrade to new and different cameras, and discover secrets within the city - that there's a Faerie realm just beneath reality, and for some reason ancient magic is awakening. The game gives you tools of exploration, tools to search and solve and navigate, and to uncover the ghostly figures who are infiltrating your world, the people on the streets who aren't really "people", and finding your way through these hidden doors and see what lies on the other side. So there's an open-world game that could conceivably give you both realism and escapism, giving you tons of freedom, and without being built around a core of violence. Why don't we have THAT game? I got more too! Where can I pitch these? Who wants in on the ground floor?? Just kidding. | 2009-08-27 06:12:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| There is a reason why the only shooter I play is Call Of Duty (and MAG when it comes out). If I had like 10 different shooter games it'd just be a waste of the money I don't have as I would just end up playing the 1 I like the most only. | 2009-08-27 06:13:00 Author: ChristmasJew  Posts: 431 |
| Quick aside I wanted to mention earlier in regards to GTA. Has little relevant to do with the discussion, but I wanted to mention it. And my reason for doing so: Because. the humor in GTA. Anyone remember that silly scuffle between Rockstar and one of the Simpsons writers? I hate new episodes of The Simpsons, but I was with the Simpsons writer on this one. Most of GTA's humor consists of slapping a "69" after something or making the signs and names into little more than overt genital innuendo. It's EVERYWHERE, and for me it just takes me right out of it, gets me thinking "oh great another **** joke, how clever". Everything's just a stupid penis joke in those games. It has some brilliant fluorishes, sometimes the world comes across like a deliriously grotesque American caricature. That's when it's good. But most of the jokes, most of the nitty-gritty haw-haws in those games are just eye-rollingly bad. Also, I was watching the Manhunt episode of Zero Punctuation (I was compelled to do so after this discussion), and it brought up something that I thought worth mentioning. I don't think anyone here is admitting that violent videogames create violent people. That isn't at ALL my viewpoint. I don't believe that playing Manhunt is going to turn little Timmy into a killer. I don't think ANY of us believe that. If little Timmy is so damaged that he can't tell the difference between the game and reality, then there are a million other sources of violence in the world that would have inspired him if he had never played videogames. Besides that, honestly little Timmy REALLY shouldn't be playing "Manhunt" to begin with. What I'm suggesting, though, is still that these games damage us, and not just the kiddos. They desensitize us at least as much as they entertain us. They're one of many many pieces of a great big loud machine all around us that are having this effect. For God's sake, the internet saw a shock video fad. A SHOCK VIDEO FAD. From where I was sitting, it finally seemed to end around the time that youtube began sprouting reaction videos to some bit of 'silliness' called "3 guys 1 hammer", which actually turns out is a leaked piece of courtroom evidence revealing maniacs brutally murdering a man in unspeakably ****ing awful ways. And kids made reaction videos for youtube, ten minutes long, watching the entire thing, unable to peel their eyes off it, because they think it somehow belongs in this "fad". The whole thing has become a depressing satire of itself. I'm on fire! I'm on fire! Quick, what's something else I can complain about?? No! No! Calm me down instead! Serve me some relaxing tea! Show me a cute kitty! AAAAAGGH! *spasm* | 2009-08-27 11:44:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| I If you want to bowl or play darts to drive cabs or ambulences, you've got to hunt those things down. The violence, on the other hand, is always available to you, no matter where you are in the game. Just a note for yourself: resorting to violence IS the most basic and easy thing to do IN REAL LIFE. It's inevitable that it is in any game with some real freedom in it. To prevent that violence freedom you have to completely remove the "violence possibility" therefore removing freedom at the same time. And that exploration game that is relaxing and non-violent with a great ambiance and all the jazz is called Afrika (PS3), Aquanauts Holidays (PS2) and Endless Ocean (Wii). Check them out! I own them all and it's awesome . | 2009-08-27 13:03:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| I must say, I came in here expecting... something different from the first post rant. I think I was expecting more of a "these games are ruining society" rant, but whatever... Anyway, I think we have more then enough FPS games out there, but at the mo', they sell and when you're in something to make money, you're going to do what sells. Personally, I think we need more RPGs, especially on PS3. But if there's a genre that's been beaten to death even more then the FPS, it's the sandbox game. 'Course, I don't play many shooters (cos I suck at them) so it's not really a big deal to me. | 2009-08-27 15:18:00 Author: dandygandy2704  Posts: 1002 |
| I must say, I came in here expecting... something different from the first post rant. I think I was expecting more of a "these games are ruining society" rant, but whatever... Well, I've subsequently gone on a rant I think rather befitting to your expectations! Violent videogames on their own aren't ruining society. But at the same time, screw it, I do think they're becoming a part of the problem, as I outlined above. It's not that it's turning our children into violent people. Instead it's turning EVERYONE into disaffected zombies. It's impossible to be "bored" nowadays. If you find yourself alone with your thoughts, you tend to thumb through your videogame collection, or turn on the tv, or put on a movie, or even crack open a book or magazine, put in a movie, get on the internet. If you're out and about you bring your iphone, your nintendo ds, your psp. We don't spend a whole lot of time "thinking" anymore, we fill up those awful moments of nothing with SOMETHING. We're constantly filling up our time with stimulus, and most of this stimulus has a desensitizing, dehumanizing effect over time. I feel it personally, I can definitely speak for myself. It's Fahrenheit 451 in here. I think the AMAZING quantity of violent videogames are on one of the most extreme ends of this spectrum of things designed to shut us down, along with attention-seeking psychopaths like Glenn Beck. And that exploration game that is relaxing and non-violent with a great ambiance and all the jazz is called Afrika (PS3), Aquanauts Holidays (PS2) and Endless Ocean (Wii). Check them out! I own them all and it's awesome I love Endless Ocean, these types of games are great fun. I just wish there was some room for this kind of thing amongst the big budget games. Instead of Uncharted 2, I'd like to see a phenomenally high-production-value version of Endless Ocean with near photorealistic graphics. But that will never happen. We still get the games, but they have to be made independently, on smaller budgets with smaller audiences. I'm really glad The Last Guardian has gotten as much press as it has. It looks absolutely stunning, and this thing has the possibility of reaching a wide swathe of gamers. There isn't a single game I'm looking forward to more. Anyway, I apologize for being somewhat annoying in this thread, but this is my complaint thread! It's time to man the opinion-cannons! | 2009-08-27 21:26:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| I don't have much to add to the many discussions in this thread, but I have to agree that many game developers are pretty much milking the shooting genre now. Sure, we get shooter games which add interesting concepts in the genre, but in the end, most shooter games that are produced have nothing to add to the genre, and they just leech of the success of other games. Personnally I've never even gotten into the shooter genre before. The only shooter games I really enjoyed were the Timesplitters games. (I'm guessing not many people of heard of that series.) | 2009-08-27 21:35:00 Author: lk9988  Posts: 1077 |
| Show me a cute kitty! AAAAAGGH! Someone fetch Oldage! | 2009-08-27 21:39:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| It's impossible to be "bored" nowadays. If you find yourself alone with your thoughts, you tend to thumb through your videogame collection, or turn on the tv, or put on a movie, or even crack open a book or magazine, put in a movie, get on the internet. If you're out and about you bring your iphone, your nintendo ds, your psp. We don't spend a whole lot of time "thinking" anymore, we fill up those awful moments of nothing with SOMETHING. We're constantly filling up our time with stimulus, and most of this stimulus has a desensitizing, dehumanizing effect over time. I feel it personally, I can definitely speak for myself. It's Fahrenheit 451 in here. While this is true, I see nothing wrong with reading a book when you're bored. Heck, it's definitely better then just wasting time in front of the TV, you know what I mean? I find that when I'm reading a particularly good book, my mind is really more engaged then if I were just sitting there thinking or whatever. And if you think you've been desensitized by video games, go watch a movie like Windtalkers. I saw it recently and I realised that even with all the video games I play, I would find it very hard to take a human life, whether the other person was going to kill me or not. | 2009-08-27 22:37:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| And if you think you've been desensitized by video games, go watch a movie like Windtalkers. Being desensitized doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't hesitate to kill someone, that's more of an extreme Back in a more innocent time people would be shocked to hear that someone had died even if they'd never met them, if they saw the games that we play these days they'd be absolutely horrified! Horror movies are another good example of desensitization. Things like Jaws (only old horror i can think of) used to be terrifying but these days it's barely classed as horror. We have really gruesome movies like Saw and even that barely phases people! You might not realize it but everyone is desensitized whether by games or any other form of media! It's just hard to notice without comparing it to an older generation because our attitude toward this stuff has changed so much | 2009-08-27 23:01:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| Back in a more innocent time people would be shocked to hear that someone had died even if they'd never met them Now there's rarely a day goes by without someone dying being all over the news so nobody cares because it's such a normal thing to hear, sky is blue, grass is green, someone died yesterday. The only time people give a toss about a death is when a major celebrity like Jacko dies and even thats split in to mourning fans and people quickly texting every mj joke they can think of to their mates. | 2009-08-27 23:46:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| Back in a more innocent time people would be shocked to hear that someone had died even if they'd never met them When exactly are we taking about here? | 2009-08-27 23:55:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| So I'd like to get some people's opinions on this. I've been getting serious shooter fatigue the last couple of years. It's such a "safe bet" in the industry right now, we've got FPS and third person shooters coming out left, right, and center. There are some fun twists on the experience like Left 4 Dead, and I'm looking forward to Modern Warfare 2 as much as anyone. At least Modern Warfare attempts to give its violence a real-world context, which is always good. But for the most part, there are great games out there that I believe are somewhat castrated by the fact that they're little more than the same old shooters. Bioshock is one of my absolutely favorite games - favorite because of the incredible setting, atmosphere, story, and intelligence. It's great science fiction. The gameplay, for the most part, is just another FPS. There could be a game like Bioshock that takes place in Rapture BEFORE the fall, in the events leading up to the end. It could be an adventure-mystery game, in first person, requiring you to explore rapture, to talk to the residents, an open-world type of game with RPG elements and little to ZERO violence. There's room to pioneer entirely new genres of gameplay with the kind of power our consoles and computers have now. Give me THAT game. Give me Bioshock-meets-Animal Crossing. These days developers could create an amazing, open world that changes over time, with repercussions for decisions made. The problem is that these games are expensive, so it's too much of a risk to do something totally new on a big budget - the market may not respond well. So, instead it becomes another shooter. There's so much room for excitement and tension in games that doesn't involve violence. I remember an old mystery-adventure game Under a Killing Moon. This was a first-person adventure-myster-thriller in a futuristic noir setting similar to Blade Runner if it had a 1940s aesthetic. There was one point where you're uncovering information and sneaking around in an office patrolled by security bots. While rummaging through the desk drawers in an office, you hear the security bot coming down the hall toward the door - you get behind the desk and hide, peeking out... I remember my heart RACING. The bot does a quick scan and leaves, as you gather your evidence and try to make an escape. You are given no weapons, there is no option to destroy the bot. it's a real game of heart-pounding hide and seek. I'm just really sick of shooters, shooters, shooters. i'm sick of aiming down the sight and trying to get headshots. Heavy Rain's going to be coming out, and it appears to be a spiritual successor to Shenmue, which is a game I really loved (funny enough, the segments I disliked the most in Shenmue were the fighting scenes). I'm looking forward to this a great deal, maybe if it does really well it'll open the doors to more risk-taking games that downplay the violent content, or at least, don't ask you to kill hundreds and hundreds of people with magazine-loaded projectiles. Any thoughts? Anyone with me on this one? FPS's shall live on FOREVER!!!!!!!! | 2009-08-28 00:04:00 Author: hking0036  Posts: 28 |
| When exactly are we taking about here? Not sure really, i wasn't alive back then xD 20 maybe 30 years, but it might not even be that long ago. Actually maybe that was a bad way of saying it, but i'm pretty sure people were more sensitive to that kind of thing a few decades ago. Desensitization has been going on for ages though in different forms. Like people who go to war or go hunting might find it easier to kill someone, people who play violent games might get less of a reaction from seeing that type of violence. Anyway my point is that everyone is desensitized in some way | 2009-08-28 00:35:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| Having played nothing but Zelda for the past couple weeks has helped to remind me that games today suck. There are only occasionally gems like LBP or Bioshock or Portal that are actually worth it. I've had enough of shooters (Multiplayer-centered shooters, that is) for a long time. Violence doesn't necessarily need to leave, but it's stupid how if something doesn't have ultra-violence and doesn't have super-realistic graphics then it's not hardcore. Zelda Windwaker is more hardcore than anything that came out last gen, and so is LBP this gen. Anyone can shoot people in a videogame. | 2009-08-28 01:09:00 Author: qrtda235566 Posts: 3664 |
| Me personally I don't mind the violence. HOWEVER, I really do wish there were more 'nice/casual/pleasant etc' games like Animal Crossing for example. I could spend hundreds of hours on a game like that whereas I wouldn't spend hundreds of hours on a violent FPS. Not that the violence puts me off playing it for hundreds of hours it's just that with most FPS's and other types of games these days I simply play them and beat them on their difficulties and then thats the end of that. Take Killzone 2 for example. I went out and bought the game on the day of release. Within 5 hours I had beaten the game on the normal difficulty and played some more over the next week to get the single player trophies. After that I havn't touched it since. Whereas, games like Animal Crossing Wild World I will happily pick up and play when I have free time and have been doing so with that game for over a year now. As I think I am straying from the main focus of the thread I shall offer my own quick summary. I don't mind the violence and the FPS's I would just enjoy a good game of Animal Crossing or any good RPG and wish we had more of those games available today (not that RPG's aren't available, it's just hard to find a great one). Sorry for my ramblings, I suffer from mild insomnia and it's been one of those days. | 2009-08-28 01:15:00 Author: Arikardo  Posts: 158 |
| While this is true, I see nothing wrong with reading a book when you're bored. And I agree, it's not the material alone that I'm railing against, it's more the attitude - the mindset we've brought ourselves to where we must fill our lives with CONSTANT STIMULATION. there are books that are engaging and thought-provoking, just as there are games and movies and... ahem... *cough*... tv-shows (*shudder*) that do the same thing, that get you thinking in a meaningful way. And likewise, that might get you the purely emotional response, that will get you feeling something. But most of the time I think people are keeping their glasses topped off, so to speak, and not with very much nourishing either, this stuff is concentrated slurpee syrup. And it can be SO HARD not to give in to this, when you're surrounded by it, when everything is available INSTANTLY. Especially now in the downloading age, where if there's ever a book we wanted to read or a game we wanted to play or a movie we wanted to watch, we can download it and read/play/watch almost instantaneously. There's not even much reason to leave the house anymore! You can just fill every minute. As I think I am straying from the main focus of the thread I shall offer my own quick summary... Sorry for my ramblings, I suffer from mild insomnia and it's been one of those days. Hey man, here's how I like to roll - Start up a thread, and assume (hope, even) that the discussion will branch out and little conversations will sprout up and people will be led to consider a variety of things. For me there is no "off-topic" - there are non-sequiturs, but that's a different story. APPLE PIE FOR EVERYBODY, HALF WITH SPRINKLES, HALF WITHOUT!! | 2009-08-28 02:09:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| I say enough, however, I would like more with co-op campaigns like in Resistance:FOM that can be played with friends offline, as they are always alot of fun. | 2009-08-28 11:30:00 Author: Boomy  Posts: 3701 |
| And I agree, it's not the material alone that I'm railing against, it's more the attitude - the mindset we've brought ourselves to where we must fill our lives with CONSTANT STIMULATION. there are books that are engaging and thought-provoking, just as there are games and movies and... ahem... *cough*... tv-shows (*shudder*) that do the same thing, that get you thinking in a meaningful way. And likewise, that might get you the purely emotional response, that will get you feeling something. But most of the time I think people are keeping their glasses topped off, so to speak, and not with very much nourishing either, this stuff is concentrated slurpee syrup. And it can be SO HARD not to give in to this, when you're surrounded by it, when everything is available INSTANTLY. Especially now in the downloading age, where if there's ever a book we wanted to read or a game we wanted to play or a movie we wanted to watch, we can download it and read/play/watch almost instantaneously. There's not even much reason to leave the house anymore! You can just fill every minute.I definitely see what you mean by that, but I find that it's rare for me to just "plug into" some sort of media and space (unless you count playing games with great immersion, but I'm not). I'm generally keeping my mind active no matter what I'm doing, trying to figure out things like what this movie/game/book/whatever is really saying and how that stacks up against what I believe and stuff like that. I do realise, though, that there are lots of people who use media of any type simply as a form of escapism, like you were talking about. And, yes, we are constantly being overloaded by the various sources of media we have. Heck, sitting at my computer desk, I can easily reach my phone, my PSP, my DS, my GBA, my MP3 player, and a couple books. That's like a four-foot radius. Me, I'm surviving the download phenomenon better than most, because for some reason, I like to have a physical copy of whatever it is that I want, be it a CD, movie, or book. That makes it a bit harder on my wallet, sure, but that's just the way I am. And I'll admit it, I'm addicted to the media just like anyone else my age. I think the only time I don't have something turned on is when I'm sleeping or eating. But sometimes when I'm eating I'm listening to music or watching TV in the background, so it's really just when I'm sleeping... (Man, I gotta start using paragraphs...) | 2009-08-28 16:57:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| I think the popularity of the shooter was bound to cause some industry fatigue... I also think it has become the current industry standard safe-bet, and this factors directly into why a game like LBP can become popular... The problem with shooters for me as presently constituted is a simple lack of ingenuity. There are too too many clones. Also, how many first-person games are not shooters? To me that should be the next explored genre on these powerful consoles... Drop me off in the middle of nowhere with no weapons and see how many days you can survive using wits and manipulating the environment. Currently, the only thing environments do are blow up! How about some true interaction? | 2009-08-28 17:27:00 Author: Gravel  Posts: 1308 |
| Also, how many first-person games are not shooters? HOW TRUE THAT IS!! You speak the truth. A grand truth has been spoken. The closest thing to a non-shooter game in first person is Oblivion, and for God's sake, it's a first-person view in which a chunk of the screen's real estate is taken up by whatever weapon you're going to use to club/shoot your enemies with as you encounter them en masse throughout the game. First person games should be in abundance, and I think it's high go******** time they release some that don't ask you to shoot everything that moves. Or even half the things that move! How about one where you never pick up a gun? Possibly even a weapon, period? I've never played the Fatal Frame games. From what i understand, your only "weapon" in that game is a camera. Are those in first person? | 2009-08-28 22:10:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| The closest thing to a non-shooter game in first person is Oblivion How about Mirrors Edge? The game has guns but it encourages you not to use them | 2009-08-28 22:42:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| I don't own any FPS, i got gta does that count? | 2009-08-28 22:58:00 Author: springs86  Posts: 785 |
| How about Mirrors Edge? The game has guns but it encourages you not to use them Early on that's true! That game had a LOT of promise, but the execution was pretty close to broken. I remember Tycho's rant from Penny-Arcade matched my thoughts almost to a T. They had an excellent, well-manifested game mechanic that probably wouldn't work as a full retail product, and in the drive to shore up that "deficiency" they did violence against their creation. This whole avoiding-guns thing, going through the whole game without killing and without shooting - they couldn't keep it up. I hear it's possible to still DO it, but seeing as it's possibly the single hardest challenge the game offers, I don't see many people finding their way down that road as they play through the campaign. Instead you're forced to sigh, shrug your shoulders, pick up that sniper rifle, and commence the murderous rampage you had theretofore managed to sidestep. In the end, the developers couldn't sustain this new idea and fell back on the old ones. It really was such a crying shame. I wish they had properly pulled it off, and had a big hit on their hands. Instead it just set us back more. EA took a risk with that game. Didn't end up being a huge seller, nor did it do well critically. I think the reason for this is that they went halfway. If they had really gone the full 9 with that concept, I think Mirror's Edge could have been one of the games of the year. I say enough, however, I would like more with co-op campaigns like in Resistance:FOM that can be played with friends offline, as they are always alot of fun. That's another thing I could rail against - the lack of split screen multiplayer support in games these days! One of my favorite pasttimes. I love co-op games, it's one way to get me to play nearly any shooter. Bring a friend over and get down to co-op business. I actually love playing online games with a buddy with me on the couch, on the same team. I've had some great times in Warhawk (but it can be a hassle to find a good unranked server). None in Fat Princess. That's a deal-breaker for me with that game. Battlefield 1943, no split screen. thank god for the Pixeljunk folks. Pixeljunk Shooter WILL have local co-op, so I'm looking forward to that. I played the WET demo today. It's just Stranglehold, but as a western. Played it, deleted it, forgot it. Seriously, this keeps up for much longer, new shooter IPs won't be a "safe bet" anymore, because they'll be so drowned out by the hundreds of other ones that are being made all over the freakin place! Maybe that's what it'll take to end this for a while. A good old fashioned bubble-burstin'. | 2009-08-29 06:50:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| The bubble may well burst. Assuming that the mainstream notice that the existing IPs are stale at around the same time other devs are scared to make new ones because of dominance. Otherwise the new old IPs will maginalise in the inventive games, or a new shooter with "revitalise" the genre and kick off a new cycle. Anyone remember herdy gerdy? I'm curious how good it was as an overall game. I only played a bit of it and loved it, and I've been thinking about getting a copy recently. That fits into the non-violent, totally original concept game category doesn't it? I'm sure no-one made a fanasy flock-herding sim before that | 2009-08-29 08:27:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| That's another thing I could rail against - the lack of split screen multiplayer support in games these days! One of my favorite pasttimes. I love co-op games, it's one way to get me to play nearly any shooter. Bring a friend over and get down to co-op business. I actually love playing online games with a buddy with me on the couch, on the same team. I've had some great times in Warhawk (but it can be a hassle to find a good unranked server). None in Fat Princess. That's a deal-breaker for me with that game. Battlefield 1943, no split screen. thank god for the Pixeljunk folks. Pixeljunk Shooter WILL have local co-op, so I'm looking forward to that.I'm so glad I'm not the only person who thinks more games need split-screen multiplayer! I have friends over at times, and we're limited to playing Lord of the Rings: Conquest, Soul Calibur 4, or LBP because those are the only games I own that have local multiplayer! I mean, sure we still get some good times out of them, but it can get a bit old when you've played all the maps in Conquest 75 times, or you've seen this match-up of "Nightmare-Clone" v. "Man-With-Bo-Staff" another 75 times, you know? I mean, the only racing games I know of with split-screen are Motorstorm, and I can't stand the shoddy physics on those games. There's just no variety. Online gaming is kinda killing multiplayer... | 2009-08-29 14:53:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| Online gaming is kinda killing multiplayer... I've noticed a lot more games recently that just completly forget about local multiplayer. Nothing really beats being able to yell at your friend in the same room and having a laugh, it's just not the same when you're miles apart and talking through a microphone or typing to them. When you're playing online you can't steal your friends controller when they're beating you at a game either | 2009-08-29 15:04:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| I've noticed a lot more games recently that just completly forget about local multiplayer. Nothing really beats being able to yell at your friend in the same room and having a laugh, it's just not the same when you're miles apart and talking through a microphone or typing to them. When you're playing online you can't steal your friends controller when they're beating you at a game either Exactly! Plus, if you don't have a mic (like me...) then the whole online experience is ruined. Trust me, nothing beats popping into an empty level in LBP and putting rockets on EVERYTHING you see. I'm just not sure online create will be able to replicate that kind of fun, you know? | 2009-08-29 15:51:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| The only violent video game I really like is Devil May Cry. The rest, eh, **** 'em. Non of them are as original, or fun (apart from Uncharted...That's another cool one). As for first person shooters, I hate them. I can never control the camera right... | 2009-08-29 17:43:00 Author: KoRnDawwg  Posts: 1424 |
| As for first person shooters, I hate them. I can never control the camera right... Ever tried inverting it? | 2009-08-29 18:06:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| Exactly! Plus, if you don't have a mic (like me...) then the whole online experience is ruined. Trust me, nothing beats popping into an empty level in LBP and putting rockets on EVERYTHING you see. I'm just not sure online create will be able to replicate that kind of fun, you know? Yeah i've never been good with mics, i find it hard talking to someone if they aren't right beside me I actually prefer OC to local multiplayer create though. It's not really a competitive thing like most games. If you want a quiet moment to complete something you can have it, if you want to go offscreen and secretly bomb your friends creation then go for it | 2009-08-29 18:08:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| Personally I still like shooters! They are really fun to play! | 2009-08-29 19:06:00 Author: AliBoy1  Posts: 142 |
| This is more then better said. Its the same just walking around shooting people, theres nothing good about it. | 2009-08-29 19:49:00 Author: Adam9001  Posts: 744 |
| Ever tried inverting it? Yes. 12345678910 | 2009-08-29 20:19:00 Author: KoRnDawwg Posts: 1424 |
| Try Portal | 2009-08-30 03:46:00 Author: bonner123  Posts: 1487 |
| I don't own any FPS, i got gta does that count? No, that's in 3rd person. | 2009-08-30 03:53:00 Author: S-A-S--G-U-N-R Posts: 1606 |
| This may have been mentioned before but "The Secret Of Monkey Island: Special Edition" is awesome! perfect in so many ways... | 2009-08-30 14:40:00 Author: elzbenz Posts: 86 |
| This may have been mentioned before but "The Secret Of Monkey Island: Special Edition" is awesome! perfect in so many ways... I LOVE The Monkey Island Games. I've met the original creator, Ron Gilbert, which I didn't even learn of until afterwards. He was just a cool guy, at no point did he mention "oh, by the way, I created Monkey Island and the adventure engine that ran all of LucasArt's best games." Someone told me later on, well afterwards. I was bowled over. Tim Schafer, I love this guy. Grim Fandango is one of my all-time favorite games, and Psychonauts was flat out brilliant. These are PRECISELY the guys that should be making games. Try Portal And this is exactly the OTHER kind of game I'm looking for! A game where you take a familiar violent genre, the fps, and you completely turn it upside down. It suddenly becomes a BRAIN-TWISTING puzzler, unlike anything you've ever played before, in which you never, through the course of the entire game, possess a firearm capable of directly hurting anybody - and yet it's hilarious, engaging, exciting, and unbelievably fun - easily moreso than 99% of the shooters that have come out in the last several years. I'd love to see more ballsy moves like this, more inversions of the fps. Also, regarding the tangent about local split screen - It's of huge importance to me. With a lot of games, shooters in particular, I often won't even bother unless I can get a friend in with me. It's so much more fun that way, especially in team-based or co-op games. One really fun one is actually the Merceneries mode in Resident Evil 5. The main game is pretty fun in local co-op, but the Merceneries mode is a blast. And yes, I'm quite aware of the irony in my recommending what is likely the single worst offender as a violent game in recent memory. Again I'm not saying that I haven't and don't have FUN playing these games. There will always be a place for this stuff - what I'm calling for is a diminished role for them, a smaller piece of the marketplace and the industry. If we right now and for the last several years were seeing a huge resurgence in popularity of point-and-click adventures - if games like Grim Fandango were now being reinvented and released en masse the way that shooters are, and took their place as the leading genre - would anyone doubt that today's kiddos would be a far better quality of person? I believe that it would make THAT big of a difference. EDIT: I was just thinking about all this and a thought occurred to me: If you had a kid play Doom, Modern Warfare, and Portal, and then asked, out of all the guns in these game, which one would you rather have and use in real life? Would it be Modern Warfare's real-world arsenal? Doom's BFG 9000? Or Portal's portal gun? It would be the portal gun. I bet more of these kids would even play pretend-"portal" when out with their friends than the other games. And that, to me, is freaking awesome. But one question... Do kids still even DO that? Would an 8-year old today go out and just "pretend" with his friends, or would they just play through Portal again instead?? | 2009-08-31 02:05:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| Hey, Teebonsey, you know that Schafer is making Brutal Legend right? Well, that game looks pretty violent and might go against what this thread is about, but still it's a Shafer game, which means it will be brilliant. Also, (I don't feel like quoting today, since you posted right above me) I think that during my childhood, I was part of the minority of kids that would actually just hang out outside and pretend to do all kinds of stuff. Seriously, just give me a stick and I could be anything from an archer defending his base to a swordsman defeating countless enemies with ease, etc. It saddens me that kids don't seem to be doing that so much these days... I'm not blaming video games, I'm just saying, it's on the decline. (Then again, I read for pleasure, so maybe that had something to do with it) It just seems like kids don't have as much imagination anymore. Wow, suddenly I feel like I'm a 95-year-old man complaining about "kids today". Also, I would pick the Portal gun. | 2009-08-31 19:01:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| http://kotaku.com/5349308/bang-bang-is-creativity-dead | 2009-08-31 21:42:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| Well my oldest and middle sons (age 5 and 3) have been donning backpacks and catching ghosts since the blue-ray release of Ghostbusters... Its absolutely hysterical watching my sons quote a movie I grew-up with and loved so. Incidentally, while the Ghostbuster game is OK, and third person, I thought the demo available on the store for dl was very good. its the NY library level and does a good job of creating a creepy atmosphere... I found it immersive. | 2009-08-31 23:26:00 Author: Gravel Posts: 1308 |
| Well my oldest and middle sons (age 5 and 3) have been donning backpacks and catching ghosts since the blue-ray release of Ghostbusters... Its absolutely hysterical watching my sons quote a movie I grew-up with and loved so. Incidentally, while the Ghostbuster game is OK, and third person, I thought the demo available on the store for dl was very good. its the NY library level and does a good job of creating a creepy atmosphere... I found it immersive. That just warms my heart. I LOVED Ghostbusters as a kid. I mean I was positively maniacal about them. I don't think I've ever wanted anything more in my entire life than the Ecto-1. I had the Ghostbusters HQ with the little spiral pole-slide, and vent on the roof for letting slime ooze through (??!). I had the proton pack with the big foam proton streams. I always went as a ghostbuster for Halloween. http://kotaku.com/5349308/bang-bang-is-creativity-dead Thank you so much for this. It was a great read, a spot-on column on the current state of creativity in industry affairs. Consumer demand has the largest influence over the games that hit the market. So, if games are limited, it also suggests that the legions of fervent gamers, bloggers and enthusiast writers who devote endless words to their desire for culturally significant games are simply paying lip service to an ideal they won't back up with their wallets. Either that, or this most vocal vertex is a segment of the market too small to matter. The same games keep getting made largely because that's all the core audience is interested in. So maybe it's gamers, not game developers, who need to get a life. This definitely squeals with the alien-like screech of truth. It doesn't do to just point the finger at the big guys and say "NO! Stop feeding me junk food!" *eats another spoonful of Gears of War* "You shouldn't be... Stop doing it, you should be blazing a trail of... mmm, nom nom... hang on, i just gotta finish this, it's delicious... what was I saying again? Oh yeah! When the hell is Gears of War 3 coming out??" And, judging by every experience I've had playing Halo online and many other shooters online, the "vocal minority" comment seems to be rather believable as well. Here's the cycle as I see it. Schafer mentioned that it's all about similar influences leading to the cycle of "sameness" in games. But there's one thing that the article didn't mention very much (it was mostly concerned with the creative, what the developers on a personal level are going through) - the fact that games are so ****ed EXPENSIVE nowadays. Like big movies, it keeps the "studios" from being willing to take a risk. If shooters are popular, the publishers will keep shovelling them down gamers' throats, and gamers by and large continue to buy and eat the stuff right up, and that support will cause the studios to release more. Then you get something really interesting like Bioshock, which originally was going to be a first person action-RPG like System Shock or Deus Ex. But it ended up turning into a more traditional FPS. If the genre wasn't such a safe bet, such a moneymaker, would this decision have been as likely to be made? it's hard to deal with, especially considering that a lot of these games ARE good. I want to play Modern Warfare 2. It will be a huge hit. This will mean we WILL continue to see a ton of shooters. We've got a Bioshock sequel with a serious case of sequelitis and moneybaggery which I don't expect I'll even bother with. We may need to see shooters start failing as a regular sight in the industry before something new comes along and strikes a chord with gamers. EDIT: to clarify this point, I think I'm referring to all the "me too" games and new IPs. If Modern Warfare 2 does gangbusters, and every other shooter does horribly, the industry's going to have to conclude that the gamer public is taken with the Modern Warfare franchise rather than shooters in general. You might see a tendency toward MORE realism perhaps, or it might heat the iron enough that one or two high-budget high-risk games may come out in an attempt to strike a new chord with a generation of jaded gamers. Schafer has a great point about the cycle of inspiration. A lot of game developers, like a lot of filmmakers, don't look far outside their own industry for inspiration. In the film industry you end up getting interesting movies from directors who take NOTHING but inspiration from other movies - This is Tarantino - and he creates something new by creating wild pastiches of all of his favorite movies. I don't think we've seen this quite in games yet, but it's not my preferred direction for ANY kind of art. Far more interesting originality is cobbled from other sources. You also get a similar cycle of "sameness" in the film industry, with many of the best movies being made by people who don't look anywhere near other movies for their inspiration. You end up with a lot of movies that look the same - Maybe something really original that struck a chord and came out years ago had such a huge influence on a generation that when they start making movies/games, you start seeing a lot of the same thing. So two things need to happen at once to get real change. Developers need to get out of the cycle, and so do gamers. No problem, right? Should be around the same difficulty level as balancing on a toothpick while juggling refrigerators and having a friendly conversation with North Korea. It's kind of like a positive feedback loop. One feeds the other feeds the other feeds the other. It seems like bubbles have to burst or lightning has to strike in order to see a flash of progress. Fumito Ueda getting to make ICO is a lightning strike. Hey, Teebonsey, you know that Schafer is making Brutal Legend right? Well, that game looks pretty violent and might go against what this thread is about, but still it's a Shafer game, which means it will be brilliant. I can't WAIT for Brutal Legend! As I've mentioned, violence is always going to be a huge part of games, as in novels, as in movies, as in art everywhere. I'm not calling for eliminating it, nor am I saying that violence in games across the board should be done away with or is wrong. Brutal Legend looks to handle its violence in great fashion - Schafer mentions that his game is based on "heavy metal album covers". This is a game that is lucidly aware of the ridiculousness, the comedy of its violence. The world of the game is a cartoon heavy metal universe where rock stars fight demons with axes and mine the craggy ores of Hell by head-banging the rocky walls. Is that harmful violent content, or is it just awesome? I think we all know the answer. At the very least, it's so creative that it deserves to be made, and I really hope it becomes a huge hit. | 2009-09-01 01:12:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
| Speaking of brutal legend. Br?tal Legend Platform: Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 Rating: Mature Content descriptors: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Partial Nudity, Strong Language, Suggestive Themes Rating summary: This is an action adventure/role-playing game that tells the story of Eddie Riggs, a roadie who is transported to a mythical world of heavy metal rock. Eddie is armed with a guitar and a double-headed axe, which players can use to slash and dismember enemies. Players can also perform "face-melting solos" (literally melting enemies' faces), meet humanoid creatures dressed like dominatrixes and brandishing whips, and liberate an army of rockers from a life of oppression. Although the storyline is often irreverent and whimsical, the depictions of violence are somewhat intense: Undead humanoids are dismembered with an axe (sometimes in slow-motion); a "Steel-Quilled Blade" causes human enemies to explode into gibs that rain down; machine guns, missile launchers, and sub woofers can be used to kill druids and other fantastical creatures. Eddie can also run over dozens of enemies with his hot rod, resulting in blood effects and more heads and limbs getting chopped off. During the course of the game, characters sometimes engage in suggestive dialogue intended for comedic effect (e.g., "Maybe with all your feedback, you guys could just blow me over the gorge" and "Playtime's over. Now let's get back to the orgy"). Players will also encounter "Skull Rakers" clad in bondage gear and amazon-like warriors dressed in leather outfits that partially reveal buttocks and breasts. Strong profanity (e.g., "*****," "sh*t," and "d*ck") can be heard in the dialogue. | 2009-09-01 08:24:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| Arn't we going WAAAAAAAAY off topic here peoples!? We're talking about violent games! Not gaming classic and masterpieces! And yes... Monkey Island is epic... but April Ryan is still #1 in my heart.... APRIL RYAN LIVES!!!!!!!! Anyway...... I can't say I've played any ULTRA violent games.... because i tend to avoid them completely..... really... gore and guts coming out of a zombie when i shoot it isn't very appleaing to me.... I would rather solve complecated puzzles and enjoy a good story line than watch cheap gore...... With that said.... anything with violence or gore is just a cover up!!!!!! Violence, action gore and blood are all just cheap cover ups to hide the horrible story-line, acting, scripting, gameplay.... or what ever in anything!!! I am being a bit sterotypical though... there are good horrer games and movies with a great story line.... Dead Space is one... although it was ripped off from a Russian movie.... ti was still good I'm also surprised that the people that made Grim Fandango and Phycounatus would make Brutal Legend into a really mature game..... Grim Fandango... also a classic! Oh! But if you want true hardcore violence.... go play +18 Japanese PC Games with a violent theme...... I MEAN IT IS JUST INHUMAIN!!!!!!! They freaking chop up little girls and then rape them.... in a VIDEO GAME! MY GOD!!!.... I never played it... i just read the description sometimes..... Some sick people in this world.... real sick...... | 2009-09-01 11:42:00 Author: snowyjoe  Posts: 509 |
| Pokemon aka digital (ock/dog fighting is it ok to make a game out of cruel and violent blood sports if you slap cute all over it? | 2009-09-01 11:52:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| Yes...as long as they are fluffy and squirt rainbows and butterflies then it is acceptable to this corrupt society. | 2009-09-02 04:55:00 Author: snowyjoe Posts: 509 |
| I agree 100%. I love all games whether they have violence in them or not. And of course there has been a HUGE surge in shooters the past so and so years. Now as for some of my personal pet peeves, I feel the violence and aggression is going over the top a lot, but not in all cases. Take Killzone 2, which I own and love. I laughed really hard from the overexagerration of the dialogue, like at the beginning (as one example) where 'I don't remember his name' was angry and said something like I feel like breaking something. The game just overexagerrated the manliness and aggression too much. I love the game because it's fun, and not because it's violence. Another thing I can't stand is how so many games are neglected now days because they have an innocent, no blood, cute look to them. Take Okami for example. Okami was an excellent game that didn't get the respect it deserved. And I wonder how many people have actually played Flower on the PSN. I do miss the old school days of gaming when everything was balanced. There was equal violence and non-violence, but now the market is overran with shooters and other games of violence and gore. I see more shooters and violent games gracing the covers of videogame magazines like GamePro for example then any other games. It's starting to get old. | 2009-09-02 11:12:00 Author: Unknown User  |
| Okami was brilliant, definitly got the respect it deserved in the media just no marketing or mainstream success. Flower to me looked boring and overpriced. | 2009-09-02 12:47:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| I agree 100%. I love all games whether they have violence in them or not. And of course there has been a HUGE surge in shooters the past so and so years. Now as for some of my personal pet peeves, I feel the violence and aggression is going over the top a lot, but not in all cases. Take Killzone 2, which I own and love. I laughed really hard from the overexagerration of the dialogue, like at the beginning (as one example) where 'I don't remember his name' was angry and said something like I feel like breaking something. The game just overexagerrated the manliness and aggression too much. I love the game because it's fun, and not because it's violence. Another thing I can't stand is how so many games are neglected now days because they have an innocent, no blood, cute look to them. Take Okami for example. Okami was an excellent game that didn't get the respect it deserved. And I wonder how many people have actually played Flower on the PSN. I do miss the old school days of gaming when everything was balanced. There was equal violence and non-violence, but now the market is overran with shooters and other games of violence and gore. I see more shooters and violent games gracing the covers of videogame magazines like GamePro for example then any other games. It's starting to get old. I've been wanting to play Okami for ages. I just... never got around to it. Also, there's a game coming out...eventually... *ahem* called Mini Ninjas, which I think you should look into. There's technically no killing in the entire game. See, these woodland animals (Pandas, foxes, chickens, etc.) have been turned into evil Samurai by some form of evil magic, so when you "kill" the Samurai, they just turn back into the animals. From what you said about wanting more games without all the gore and killing, I think this would be a good game for you. Plus, it's funny and wicked fun to play. | 2009-09-02 16:01:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| Well teebonesy if you think dead space is "just another boring shooter" than, god im speechless... If you don't like guns, what kind of games do you like!? | 2009-09-03 04:24:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251 |
| To Rabid-Coot . . . Of course Okami got that kind of respect, especially since it touched numerous Game of the Year candidates lists. But I mean from the players themselves (that don't work in the industry). As for Flower, it is a lot better than you'd think. It's a unique experience and is actually very entertaining. The feeling of riding the wind in the game is great, and it resembles Okami in ways of bringing life to each area. Can't really describe a game like Flower. It's very relaxing too. To dandygandy . . . You'll love Okami, which is lengthy enough to satisfy, plus it has good replay value with it's very nice unlockables. As for Mini Ninjas, I'll have to look into it. Sounds interesting. | 2009-09-03 05:57:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Hey, I'll have to try and pick up a copy, then, once I start spending money again... Also, there's a demo for Mini Ninjas on the PS Store. I don't know if I mentioned that, but I figured I'd be safe. | 2009-09-03 15:13:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| If you have a wii you have to get Okami xD That mini-ninjas thing sounds kind of like Spyro as well. The enemies don't die they just turn back into the gems they were created from. (or does that count as dieing? xD) | 2009-09-03 16:11:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| I have a PS2, Dex. And I'm pretty sure Okami was on PS2 first, so I shouldn't have to worry, right? | 2009-09-03 16:22:00 Author: dandygandy2704 Posts: 1002 |
| Yeah it's on the PS2 as well, don't think there's much difference between the 2 versions other than a slight change of the graphics. | 2009-09-03 16:29:00 Author: Dexiro Posts: 2100 |
| Arn't we going WAAAAAAAAY off topic here peoples!? We're talking about violent games! Not gaming classic and masterpieces! Actually, this isn't off-topic at all! In discussing (and lamenting) the negative state of videogames, a crucial part of the conversation is talking about the alternative - what are the silver linings, what are the positive examples of progressive game design and where we should be heading? Well teebonesy if you think dead space is "just another boring shooter" than, god im speechless... If you don't like guns, what kind of games do you like!? I think you must have misunderstood several of my posts throughout this thread. I'll do you the favor of pasting a few to help clarify my stance. As I've mentioned, violence is always going to be a huge part of games, as in novels, as in movies, as in art everywhere. I'm not calling for eliminating it, nor am I saying that violence in games across the board should be done away with or is wrong. about Dead Space: I had some fun, it's a solid game with great atmosphere. I even watched the motion graphic novel and saw the crappy movie. I took the full Dead Space plunge, and enjoyed myself. And I'll be the first to admit that I draw a twisted amount of fun in my GTA killing sprees. I think what I need to additionally clarify is that I'm not saying these games are boring! That's not at all the problem i'm describing, quite the opposite. Most of these games are highly-engaging, and there are TONS of them, more than a reasonable person could play in his spare time! My point is two-fold: One, that all of this time spent enjoying incredibly violent shooters is somewhat damaging to the old "humanity". The other, related point, is that I think the industry has an affliction right now, an FPS virus. Sometimes it seems that shooters is all the industry REALLY knows how to do. I had a GREAT time playing Dead Space, but it is NOT the game I expected. I wouldn't classify it as survival horror, I would classify it as a run-and-gun action game. There were so many monsters to shoot out throughout the game, and you're so stocked with a powerful upgradeable arsenal that their presence after a time became commonplace enough, and stoppable enough to cease being scary - this is when the game transitioned from a horror game to an action game for me, and it happened pretty early on. Was it a hell of a polished, atmospheric, great-looking action game with solid controls? Yup. But was it progressive, or did it mostly fit into the industry's current mold of popular games? About the Okami discussion: Okami came out right around the same time as Twilight Princess. I expected Zelda to be my favorite of the two, because... for God's sake, it's Zelda! But a couple of years have gone by now, and Okami has stayed with me in an indelible fashion. It was an incredible game in nearly every capacity, and I think better than Twilight Princess as well. Okami's a game that does a perfect job in its violent content. The story is fantastical, so is the look - you play a God, and you fight demons and monsters, all of it seems torn right out of the pages of Japanese folklore. The game gives you these tools of "creation", a celestial paintbrush which you can use the change the world. You can bring dawn, you can control the wind, and you're tasked with bringing life to the natural world, and ridding it of a dark presence. the really interesting thing is that by destroying the "bad guys" you can invigorate the land, changing it, giving it life and color. Every act of destruction is balanced with an act of construction. The game is absolutely gorgeous, and I love just about everything about it. I'm glad it was brought up, because it's a perfect counter-example to the problem with games right now! | 2009-09-04 00:18:00 Author: Teebonesy Posts: 1937 |
Hopping into this conversation at the end, so I may have missed some points or just be repeating what others have said, but my take on this issue is thus: Shooters are all well and good (if overdone), but the real problem is that gaming has devolved into a business in some areas, only around to make the higher-ups more and more money. It used to be making things that people enjoyed, or telling a great story. Those still exist in a number of games, but a growing number of developers are simply churning out what sells. And what sells? Well... yes... Wii games. But OTHER than that, shooters sell very well, as evidenced by the millions of screamy, 10-year-old halo fanboys. I loved halo, and my little sister and I sit down and try to blow each others' brains out on occassion, but that's mostly because when it was made, it was still somewhat original. Sure, other shooters were there first; Doom, Quake, Unreal, CoD, but Halo had a pretty good story and a [dang] good soundtrack. Gears came after that; good and different for it's 3rd person perspective, but another copy. Then more CoD came. Then more Half-Life (which I personally love). Then Fracture, and Haze, and Far Cry, and a million other nameless titles. Some great, some make you want to rip your eyes out, then break your thumbs. The genre of game is only slightly important. Platformers were done to hell in their day, with Spyro, Crash, and LOTS of PSOne games, but we still play LBP, right? The deciding factor here is originality. Lots of people play RPG's. They sell well and are all over the place. Does this mean if you make an RPG right now in five seconds with elves and magic and dragons it will sell millions of copies? No! (unless you teamed up with Nintendo or EA beforehand) People don't want the same thing they've had for years just because it was good that time. They want something new, something different. If it comes in the package of something familiar and/or nostalgic, all the better! But if there aren't any innovations, changes, or additions, why not just play through the first one again? I just realized I've been typing for about 5 minutes now, so I'll stop ranting. I may be completely off target in some or all of my arguments up there, but one thing is clear to me: Just because there are a lot of crap shooters out there that only exist to be violent doesn't mean we should stop making games with guns in them. Just make sure the new games are good! ...Dangit, almost started up again...  | 2009-09-04 00:35:00 Author: Unknown User |
| I have MGS4 but Im scared so I let my friend do it | 2009-09-04 12:27:00 Author: PSN:AAM2730  Posts: 128 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.