Bulletstorm Dev: Games be a-changin'
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That may in fact be why I found the game so incredible the first time I played it. I didn't figure out how to disarm cops or use guns until my second playthrough. As a result, the weight of the police-state weighed down heavily upon me and I found myself much more connected to Faith.lacktheknack said:
Here is the thing though. Drake willingly went after these guys, knowing that it would result in violence. If I invade an army base I am not justified in killing the soldiers there just because they are shooting at me.strumbore said:
And why did he go after these people, knowing he would most likely have to kill a lot of them? For tressure. Sure later it turns out that the treasure is really a WMD but that is not something Drake knows until the last 30 minutes (or even less) of the game.
When our games start using "real" people acting out in the "real" world I guess we start using real world morals to judge their actions. This in turn means game developers need to think more about character motivations if they do not want their protagonists to come of as monsters (In BS:I Dewitt is a monster so no problem there). Alternatively just put me on Mars and have me kill hell spawn. Nobody ever questioned that
It's a nice sentiment, but I really don't see this happening.
The fact remains that shooting dudes/stuff is the easiest way for a developer to create interaction for the player with the gameworld. You aim, press a button, and whatever you aimed at falls down or explodes. And in this day and age where the majority generally demands instant epic satisfaction, there's not much room for non-offensive triple-A games.
I recently had the idea it might be cool to have an action game where all you do is dodge attacks. And through dodging and using the environment to your advantage you would take out enemies. Kinda like Jackie Chan. But I think the average gamer would ultimately just want to blow shit up.
The fact remains that shooting dudes/stuff is the easiest way for a developer to create interaction for the player with the gameworld. You aim, press a button, and whatever you aimed at falls down or explodes. And in this day and age where the majority generally demands instant epic satisfaction, there's not much room for non-offensive triple-A games.
I recently had the idea it might be cool to have an action game where all you do is dodge attacks. And through dodging and using the environment to your advantage you would take out enemies. Kinda like Jackie Chan. But I think the average gamer would ultimately just want to blow shit up.
That's easy to fix. Instead of removing the mass murder option all you have to do is give players the ability to complete the game without killing anyone, or at least without killing as much. What I wanted to see for a long time in a video game is wounding people instead of killing them. What if I hit someone in the arm or leg? I don't want them to keep fighting like nothing happened, but I don't want them to die either. Why can't they just stay incapacitated? A few non-lethal weapons would also be a good addition. A simple tranquilizer gun would do the trick in most games. I loved using tranquilizer rounds in Alpha Protocol, and I can't bring myself to kill people in Deus Ex: HR. It makes me feel like I'm failing at the game.
As has been mentioned in this thread, I think the criticism about Bioshocks violence is unfair and misses the point.
In fact, I put together a rather lengthy *spoileriffic* article on the subject.
http://monkeyphatt.com/ps3/why-bioshock-infinites-violence-is-necessary/
TL;DR
The violence is down-right necessary in order to define the setting, the characters, the themes, story and ultimately gameplay (from a narrative standpoint, not meaning that it has to be fun to kill people in the game).
In fact, I put together a rather lengthy *spoileriffic* article on the subject.
http://monkeyphatt.com/ps3/why-bioshock-infinites-violence-is-necessary/
TL;DR
The violence is down-right necessary in order to define the setting, the characters, the themes, story and ultimately gameplay (from a narrative standpoint, not meaning that it has to be fun to kill people in the game).
I'd say Bulletstorm got that down pretty well. It would be nice though, if developers didn't feel the need to make it like the characters are so hurt and upset by all the killing...Zachary Amaranth said:
I agree with that. Bioshock Infinite's violence is needed to characterize Booker as well as to set the tone for this fucked up floating city.chikusho said:
Yet in the larger picture, I would prefer if games would give me non-lethal options of dealing with enemies. Look at Mars: War Logs - it's low-budget game with many flaws, but at least they give you the option to spare your enemies! A minor detail that greatly improved my experience and which was the major reason why I bought it in first place.
Now imagine if most AAA titles would do the same. A girl can dream...
I don't give a crap. I liked the combat in games like Tomb Raider, Far Cry, and Bioshock. I don't care for explaining why you're fighting 30 guys at once instead of 3. I can abstract the lack of realism. Yes I want the story and to kill 400 dudes, the cake and eat it too.
Don't get me wrong. It's a worthy experience when gameplay and narrative are a complete match. But, no, there is no "need" for it.
Don't get me wrong. It's a worthy experience when gameplay and narrative are a complete match. But, no, there is no "need" for it.
This reminds me of something I read in a D&D book, along the lines of "violence is not necessarily evil in the context of the D&D world". I think sometimes it can be used (or not used) to further enhance narrative and characterization, and sometimes it is a game play mechanic that, well, gets the game played.
Honestly, I think that the Drake games could have done with a lot less violence simply because I never felt like it was a compelling piece of the games mechanics or narrative. Full disclosure, I haven't played the third one yet but I doubt that the combat mechanics would have been improved and fully integrated into the game in a way that makes me say: "I feel like shooting some mans, I should pop in 'dat Drakes!". The overall game experience could have benefited from a 'less is more' approach in terms of the combat.
Here's two games I can think of that did it well, I'm sure there are more, these just popped into my head. Velvet Assassin and Prince of Persia (2005). VA was primarily a stealth game, sure, but you only killed like 200 people across 12 levels and that was your JOB. KILLING PEOPLE. IN A WAR. You could kill more, but not that much more, and you could kill less. Heck, in PoP'05 there were like, 4 bosses, and that was about it. Maybe every major section might have one shadow enemy but they could be cut off before they even spawned if you navigated the terrain well and got there before it started. I think maybe you have 10 fights in that game tops, that actually require violence, but when you got into a fight it was a big deal.
Most of your deaths in that game were because you mistimed a jump or forgot to have Elika help you make a bigger leap across a chasm. Like Dark Souls and the Death Star, lack of proper safety railings were the reaper's scythe.
Honestly, I think that the Drake games could have done with a lot less violence simply because I never felt like it was a compelling piece of the games mechanics or narrative. Full disclosure, I haven't played the third one yet but I doubt that the combat mechanics would have been improved and fully integrated into the game in a way that makes me say: "I feel like shooting some mans, I should pop in 'dat Drakes!". The overall game experience could have benefited from a 'less is more' approach in terms of the combat.
Here's two games I can think of that did it well, I'm sure there are more, these just popped into my head. Velvet Assassin and Prince of Persia (2005). VA was primarily a stealth game, sure, but you only killed like 200 people across 12 levels and that was your JOB. KILLING PEOPLE. IN A WAR. You could kill more, but not that much more, and you could kill less. Heck, in PoP'05 there were like, 4 bosses, and that was about it. Maybe every major section might have one shadow enemy but they could be cut off before they even spawned if you navigated the terrain well and got there before it started. I think maybe you have 10 fights in that game tops, that actually require violence, but when you got into a fight it was a big deal.
Most of your deaths in that game were because you mistimed a jump or forgot to have Elika help you make a bigger leap across a chasm. Like Dark Souls and the Death Star, lack of proper safety railings were the reaper's scythe.
Naturally, that needs to play into the kind of gameplay the game is going for.Karoshi said:
Theoretically, every shooter could have palette swapped guns that hits without blood spatter as a stun alternative, but that wouldn't make sense to implement since the kill option would always warrant a higher age restriction.
Captcha knows what I'm talking about: "have purpose"
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.sethisjimmy said:
See, what bother me isn't the fact that Nathan Drake is killing people. The problem is that he is alone (or vastly outnumbered), with casual clothes, killing HORDES of well armed, bullet-proof-vest-wielding trained mercenaries, like they were cardboard cut targets.
To me, it completely DESTROYS immersion.
And it is just incredibly lazy combat design.
A lot of games work around this issue, be it with a fantasy setting ("he is a Jedi"), superpowers (Infamous, for instance), or futuristic armor (Halo and Crysis).
Uncharted, one of the main offenders of story against gameplay simply ignores the problem.
There are so many games that do it right, IMHO:
In Metal Gear Solid you kill some people, but you never engage in combat with a dozen of enemies simultaneously (or you'll probably die). And Snake is the perfect soldier, heavily trained and cloned from another perfect soldier. (ugh - spoilers, I guess)
Demon's/Dark Souls you have your ass kicked by a couple of enemies, and every encounter is relevant.
Yakuza works around melee combat and with the fact that Kiryu is build like a friggin PRO-Wrestler, he is the best fighter in town ("Dragon of Dojima" as we are constantly reminded) and a total badass. Still, he is fighting 5 or 6 thugs (that are clearly weak and stupid) at a time. And another thing that I love about it is the WEAPONS. There are weapons, but they are scarce. And it helps the setting, since, in most cases, people wouldn't be walking around downtown Tokyo (sorry, I mean Kamurocho) with firearms and heavy rifles. So yes, there are shots fired and guns can change the stakes on a fight. But it never becomes full-blown shoot-outs.
And, to a lesser extent, lately I really apreciated Tomb Raider reboot's solution. Fewer enemies, interesting stealth mechanics and the bow and arrow.
And what is great is that most of the enemies are using bows too. The enemies are castaways too. Guns are a rare commodity on the island, and Lara manages to get one. So, there you have it, a great plot explanation for a balanced combat AND a slight advantage to make the main character kick some ass.
Uncharted just ignore the flaws in its combat system. It would be more interesting if there were fewer enemies and Drake took much more damage. That way, fighting two foes would be challenging and meaningful, and the main character wouldn't look like an unstopable healing-factor beast chewing through human lives like we post the internet.
I was actually thinking about MGS when writing that comment. What I love about the MGS series is that not only can you play the entire game using non-lethal tactics, you're often rewarded for doing so in the form of special items and equipment. You're even punished in some cases for killing too many people, such as the fight with The Sorrow in MGS3.Big_Boss_Mantis said:
And in Dark Souls the whole aspect of death - of the player and the enemies - is a major theme supported in story and gameplay. Death is a core gameplay mechanic and when the player faces off against strong enemies, he/she will often (realistically) die, which teaches the player that the only way to come out on top of the odds is to play strategically and carefully. In this game the character typically dies just as much as his foes do. And this is all supported with the concept of resurrection. Death is only a setback, but your enemies are able to revive just as you are, so the character and the enemies are always on a level playing field in a way.
I haven't played the other games you mentioned, but I just really like these two examples, and how they support their respective views on killing and death through gameplay. It's obvious that the developers didn't just add killing without a second thought, they put some real effort into incorporating it into the game and making it meaningful.
While I agree, FarCry 3 did at least present Brody as being initially hesitant about killing. It doesn't reflect in the gameplay, but it's in the narrative.josemlopes said:
The best example I know of what you're mentioning would be in RAGE. You emerge from the Ark, John Goodman saves your ass, and you're immediately given a pistol and told to go kill things.
Was I a soldier, before Apophis hit? How does my character feel about killing dudes? Why doesn't my guy even remotely object?
Jason Brody feels at least remotely human, the dude from RAGE is lazy world design and mechanics implementation personnified. On the other hand, we were kind of naive for thinking that a Bethesda-id Software publishing deal would result in anything more than "Wanton Gunplay Gallery XXVI".
No, ridiculous, that's not how it is. It's really irritating how critics keep jumping on this franchise just because they want to run with this "mass-murderer" joke.Tombsite said:
Drake never went looking for trouble (at least, not where he expected to kill anyone). EVER.
Uncharted 1: Drake and Sully investigate a deserted island. Sully gets shot by rival Roman, Drake gets shot at, and runs into Elena. They escape, take Sully's plane, and try to get to the treasure before Roman does. WHY?? Because Drake doesn't want to let Roman get it first. WHY??? Because the SOB shot Sully!!! Elena gets lost, Sully is kidnapped, and Drake forces his way through mercenary armies to get them back.
Uncharted 2: Drake gets persuaded to loot a museum. He doesn't kill any guards (yes, including the one he pulled off the roof), and insists his partner do the same. After being set-up and thrown in prison for 3 months, Drake is persuaded into pursuing his ex-partner to get the treasure first. WHY?? Vengeance, same as last time. In his own words, "Payback's a *****!" Following his ex-partner and his employer, warlord Zoran Lazarević, Sully pushes Drake into a pit with two soldiers/mercenaries, who attack him, and Drake punches their lights out. In the camp, a diversion is made so Drake can look at archaeological evidence, and the soldiers return and try to kill him. Drake is pursued by Lazarević's army the rest of the game.
Uncharted 3: Drake wants a relic that was originally paired with his ring, so he sets up a con with Sully to lure the woman who looted the relic (and tried to kill him as a boy) so he can track her back to it. Things go wrong, as they often do with Drake, and everyone in the pub tries to kill him. When that happens, all bets are off. It's cat-and-mouse again, and the mouse caries 2 guns. Then there's the whole kidnapping thing...
I absolutely agree with this. I'll even meet you halfway on Uncharted in that its campiness almost undoes itself when Nathan Drake, the lovable con-man and treasure hunter, starts throwing out one-liners while cracking necks and machine-gunning crowds of soldiers. But there is nothing of substance to suggest that he is a mass-murderer, or (more amusingly) a genocidal champion of the "master race".Tombsite said:When our games start using "real" people acting out in the "real" world I guess we start using real world morals to judge their actions. This in turn means game developers need to think more about character motivations if they do not want their protagonists to come of as monsters (In BS:I Dewitt is a monster so no problem there). Alternatively just put me on Mars and have me kill hell spawn. Nobody ever questioned that
Oh wow. Going by the title I'd thought it'd be about some dumbass saying always on DRM and microtransactions are the future and we should all just get used to it.
I didn't expect something like this. I agree with them whole-heartedly.
I think the game to suffer from this 'need to have enemies to kill' the most was L.A Noir. I mean seriously, a detective wouldn't be getting into massive shootouts every time he's on the case, but because of this stupid need for every game hero to be a one man army they just had to put them in.
I didn't expect something like this. I agree with them whole-heartedly.
I think the game to suffer from this 'need to have enemies to kill' the most was L.A Noir. I mean seriously, a detective wouldn't be getting into massive shootouts every time he's on the case, but because of this stupid need for every game hero to be a one man army they just had to put them in.
LA Noir was a badly reskinned GTA with some interesting animation tech. Everything about the game said "rushed" to me. The combat was just a particularly glaring issue.
I get that the violence in Bioshock: Infinite was intentional tone-setting, but that doesn't mean that I think it did the job well. Especially with the narrative-forced betrayal by your "allies" and the endless and unchanging gunfights. "Oh good, another middling-sized open area with tears in it. Time for another identical 5-minute gunfight..." The tone would have been better served by the killing having some weight to it, rather than just trying to compensate for quality with quantity.
Edit: Example in-game:
just felt like a physical punch to the gut. THAT is how you give narrative weight to killing.
I get that the violence in Bioshock: Infinite was intentional tone-setting, but that doesn't mean that I think it did the job well. Especially with the narrative-forced betrayal by your "allies" and the endless and unchanging gunfights. "Oh good, another middling-sized open area with tears in it. Time for another identical 5-minute gunfight..." The tone would have been better served by the killing having some weight to it, rather than just trying to compensate for quality with quantity.
Edit: Example in-game:
When Elizabeth kills Daisy