I’m a lover, not a fighter
I have a confession to make. Bludgeoning strangers to death no longer excites me.
This isn’t a rant against violent games, where combat is the game’s raison d’être – I like my gibs as much as the next Quake fan. It’s not even a complaint that all popular games are violent – a look at any sales charts will convince you otherwise. But it seems that for game developers, the default response to any confrontation is violence. I realize that conflict is an important part of game design, but can’t we have more options? A little variety? I don’t want all my games to reflect reality, but I do enjoy games that let me inject my own morals. Generally speaking, my first reaction upon meeting a group of new people is not to beat the crap out of them, yet I’m regularly expected to do so in a game.
I was actually inspired to write this by a comment by a Shacknews poster. He almost wished that Bioshock wasn’t an FPS, because he enjoyed the atmosphere so much and got a Myst-type exploratory vibe. After playing the demo, I’m inclined to agree.
Bioshock is a bit of an extreme example, but there are several titles that come to mind when I think about good games that could stand on their own merits without the combat. The Sly Cooper series of games are some of my most-recommended when a parent asks about a good PS2 game for their family. I stand by that decision, but with a cast of characters with so much personality, it’s a crying shame that they’re reduced to flailing around beating up enemies for much of the game. I’d love to see more focus on Sly’s acrobatic leaps and puzzle solving instead.
Lest you still think I’m secretly on an “OMG GAME VIOLENCE IS HURTING TEH KIDS!!!” kick, another example of a game that would be much better with less fighting is the very M-rated Silent Hill 2. The first 20 minutes or so are spent walking down a hill, barely seeing a soul. It’s pure atmosphere. I think it does an even better job of setting you up than the Half-Life train intro. I was terrified when the first monster appeared, and that feeling of panic continued for the next few attacks. Unfortunately, a couple of hours later I was hardened to the nightmarish freaks, because the developers overplayed the combat. If they would have reduced the monster attacks, and left James as helpless as he was at the start of the game, this would have been a brilliant, truly mature experience rather than merely a good monster killing game.
It’s as if game developers (or more likely, publishers) don’t have the confidence to release a game that doesn’t have combat, unless it’s a puzzle or sports game. Ico didn’t need me hitting shadows with a stick to move me. Beyond Good & Evil is still sitting on my shelf virtually unplayed because as wonderful as I hear it is, when I gave it a try and found Jade whack, whack, whacking bad guys (seriously developers, if you’re going to keep sticking superfluos fighting in, could we at least have a different combo?) at the start of the game, I was turned off.
There is hope. The typically combat-less adventure game genre has been quietly undergoing a resurgence in popularity over the past couple of years, and there has been at least one break-out (read: console version too) title – Indigo Prophecy (aka Fahrenheit). Although flawed, it was an ambitious game that sought to focus on the story, setting, and characters more than tired gameplay mechanics, and even managed to sell fairly decently. We need more games like this. Maybe not as “interactive movie” as Indigo Prophecy, but with the same level of mature themes and mature gameplay.
Come on, publishers. I’m not the only one who feels like this. And we promise we’ll buy your game even without the triple-press-whack-attack.
August 24th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I recently played Gods: Land of Infinity. In the Elven land there was a Unicorn forest where something was wrong that was making the Unicorns hostile. But you weren’t allowed to attack them. I loved that constraint – it was so nice in contrast to the otherwise battle-heavy game.
Likewise, I love in Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines that they made the Haunted Hotel completely intense and creepy without a single battle!
It *can* be done – not every game should be non-violent, but killing everything in sight shouldn’t be the default action for every game either. I would love a RPG where you could make it through the entire game on diplomacy alone.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I’m not even asking for “moral choices” variety here, though I’d love to see more games that truly play out differently rather than being reduced to “darkside points gained” scenarios.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:27 am
The best examples of games where avoiding direct conflict was preferable is relatively short, but the ones that do tend to feel very good to play. I am talking about games like Thief, Star Trek 25th Anniversary, Judgement Rites, and Planescape Torment. In some cases, like Thief it is because enemies are considerably more deadly than you, while the other games I mentioned favored diplomacy or subtlety because of moral or practical reasons.
Of course, there are some games that are shooters but indirect combat is an good idea – namely, Operation Flashpoint comes to mind. One shot was likely to be a killing blow for the player, so caution is the name of the game. It could take two hours to complete a single mission, because the environment was extremely deadly, which meant that completing your task and getting out was survival. Killing everything is an time-consuming and useless task.
In a way, I feel that games need roughly three things – Gimmicks, Atmosphere, Solidness. An gimmick is the thing that makes an game different from the rest of the crowd, things like the RPG statistics and inventory system in System Shock 2 or Deus Ex. Atmosphere is the setting, sound, and graphics of an game that gives it an personality. Mario Brothers, Beyond Good & Evil, Butcher’s Bay possess this. Finally the solidarity, the underlying framework an person doesn’t directly see is crucial. The many little things that have to work so that the entirety is effective, like lighting systems, AI, and so on.
I formed this opinion from what I observed in the many and different games I have played. Perhaps I am wrong, but it feels right to me. Which is why direct violence tends to get old in most games, because developers can only use violence in certain ways and tend to make the method rote, uninteresting. Bioshock is probably better than most because of how people can create new ways of destroying enemies through the mixed usage of plasmids. One player destroyed an enemy by lifting it into the air with a cyclone, doused it with oil, then used fire to ignite it. If this enemy were to jump into a pool of water, lightning could polish it off. GTA is good because the surrounding environments, vehicles, and weapons on hand can change a way a battle is handled significantly.
Variety, is probably the core of all these things.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Interesting points, all.
Thief stands out for me because combat was such a stupid thing to engage in. You’d have to hide bodies, spend water arrows to get rid of blood, and worry about surviving because combat was so dangerous (though I myself did get very good at the sword). The console Thief – 3, I think – wasn’t near as good as the first two but I’d like to see more of an emphasis on that.
August 26th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I feel some of the same. I don’t revel in excessive gore and I get sick of doing too much of the same thing.
Wandering halls and shooting monsters was fun in 1996. Now? Not so much for me even with improved production values. It can tide me over for a few hours while I enjoy the state of the art graphics and style and sound, but then I need something new.
So I like shooters that offer more than just shooting/fighting.
I also like surprises and twists in the gameplay and like the weapons/items to be distinct and offer unique experiences.
In Bioshock so far (I’m just past the surgeon still) there’s not really a distinction between shooting a guy with a machine gun, pistol, fire, electricity or even hurling an object at him. It all feels the same except you get a different sound and effect.
I wish they’d borrow more from a ZElda or Metroid for example where the weapons and times are more unique and you really need them to get to point A or B. I also wish I’d see more bosses with weak points in western fps games.
I know it all sounds contrived and it is to an extent, but it always make me feel like I’m progressing. In many western fps games I don’t get that sense of progression. In FEAR? I felt like I was on an endless loop. I felt much the same way in FAR CRy too. IT’s early, but I’m feeling it a bit in Bio too.