Gears of War Designer: "The Future of Shooters is RPGs"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Presenting subjective opinion as fact is absurd. That and yes, a cover system was used in a game called Kill.Switch many a year before Gears. That's like saying every FPS is like Doom therefore nobody working on games like Bioshock that is nothing like Doom deserves no credit.Psychosocial said:
It doesn't add up.
In the case of Gears of War (2), I play it not for any kind of deep storyline but for the more base pleasures of running through the locust with the chainsaw bayonet or knocking huge chunks of flesh off a Burumak with a mounted chaingun. If I wanted anything deeper than that, then I'd buy another game. Let's just keep the Gears games the way there are: big, dumb and brutal (not that unlike most of the cast then).Bored Tomatoe said:
Meh...
I like a game with a good story if it's presented well together with GOOD gameplay. (I liked Mass Effect, cuz I think it had both. yeah gunplay wasn't best but it was decent enough for me)
And I don't like seeing all these opinions. Why do people have to be so damn individual?
*evil dictatory grin*
I like a game with a good story if it's presented well together with GOOD gameplay. (I liked Mass Effect, cuz I think it had both. yeah gunplay wasn't best but it was decent enough for me)
And I don't like seeing all these opinions. Why do people have to be so damn individual?
*evil dictatory grin*
I decided to grab this giant chunk of decent debate to add to it.buy teh haloz said:
First off: Cry some more, Cliffy. If you make a game with story as an afterthought and then spend your ad campaign money on trying to convince people there is a deep story, you're going to get backlash. Pretentiousness is frowned upon by "The Internet" (though there's some irony there for sure)
Secondly: I don't think we can really say "oh, Halo and Gears of War are a lot alike". Maybe I'm a bit biased but I consider Halo to actually have enough of a story to be interesting. Sure it cribs from a lot of other sci-fi games and movies, but that's par for the course. However I can easily make a case that Halo as a series tells two, maybe even three stories.
1. It tells the story of humanity struggling to survive in the face of religious fanatics who want them dead for reasons they cannot fathom.
2. It tells the story of The Elites (and the Arbiter) who face a crisis of faith in the wake of the death of one of the Covenant Prophets, an action that soon proves to be the spark of a civil war that splits the mighty forces of the Covenant apart down the middle.
3. (and this is more in the background) It tells the story of the Forerunners who all but wiped themselves out in order to save the galaxy from a parasitic alien race, and what role they had in shaping humanity.
Now again, none of this is "great" by any means, and a lot of the story was further deepened by novels, graphic novels, and Alternate Reality Games. And that's fine. Even without those some people still got the gist and enjoyed it. Talking to those I know who played through the games, most of them say "yes, it's not the greatest story ever told, but it's good and it's sufficiently deep enough"
Meanwhile we get over to Gears of War and I cannot find anybody I know who played the game to get to tell me with a straight face "yeah it has a good story". Because it's really not supposed to. It's a bunch of e-peen waving and chainsaws on guns. And toast apparently.
Also, I thought it was the Wii making gaming more mainstream. Or is this the week we blame Halo for the death of our once noble sport? I forget.
Yes, maybe Cliffy B has a point that "oh look at me I'm rich and you're not", but that still doesn't change the fact he's gaming's version of Michael Bay and that money or not, that doesn't mean what he's making is actually good from any standpoint other than "did the average person buy it". I mean sure, if you're shallow and materialistic and only think that "makes money = good" then fine. You, Cliffy, Michael, Wall Street, Apple, Ken Lay, and Bernie Madoff have much to discuss.
And yes, games that pushed the envelope like Grim Fandango, Psychonauts, Killer 7, No More Heroes, etc. did not do well financially. But NMH has done well enough to get a sequel (and Suda 51 is a man who as a rule does not sequelize). Tim Schafer is still making games. Deus Ex is almost a decade old and people are still paying money to buy downloadable versions of it off of Steam or Gametap. And Fallout 3, a FPSRPG to be sure, was judged by many to be 2008's game of the year. So is innovation really being punished? I don't think so. If it was, Schafer would've given up by now but he loves what he does regardless of acclaim. That is the sign of someone passionate about their work. So yes, maybe the future of the FPS is having RPG elements. Personally I see nothing wrong with that as long as it's balanced.
However, until Cliffy B does something new (which he hasn't done since UT), I don't think he has the right to say a damn thing. And speaking as someone who is trying to get into the industry (yeah, I know, not with this attitude I won't
) I would like to see more Schafers of the world than Cliffys, people who don't care about being stupidly wealthy, but would rather have fame through what they do instead of "the bottom line"
While I think tossing in a little bit of RPG stuff would be interesting like stories and character stuff, they shouldn't try to make games films like they're doing nower days with celebrity voice acting and endless cut scenes.
To a certain extent I think the comment about making games fun is correct as that's kind of what they're for, but comparing himself to Bay is selling himself a bit short.
To a certain extent I think the comment about making games fun is correct as that's kind of what they're for, but comparing himself to Bay is selling himself a bit short.
It's not like this is a new development. They've been adding RPG elements to games for a few years now. Your grind XP to get special guns or other perks in such games as Call of Duty, Battlefield and more.
The Michael Bay bit, just shows his agendas now. Make lots of money.
The Michael Bay bit, just shows his agendas now. Make lots of money.
I agree 100%. That is why I have not purchasing another Call of Duty. the fith one might have had a good story from what I herd, but in reality, they really havn't tweaked there gameplay.Credge said:
What area are you interested in?AceDiamond said:I don't think he has the right to say a damn thing. And speaking as someone who is trying to get into the industry (yeah, I know, not with this attitude I won't
As for your points, I disagree entirely. What you, along with many people, fail to notice about Gears and it's story is the fact its not deep for a reason. The game attempts to give the player enough story motivation to keep them playing but supplies quick, action-packed dialogue because the game is based around action. Its not a story-based game because the gameplay doesn't warrant it. Hence the reason there are little, quick cut-scenes and a large amount of dialogue takes place in-game.
Your right in the sense its the gaming equivalent of a Hollywood blockbuster - but that, in my mind, is a good thing. I don't see games as anything more, unless they are RPG's. I personally don't play shooters for their story; if they have a great action-packed narrative such as CoD4 then the experience is enriched, but not dramatically.
The key area of ANY shooter is the gameplay; the story should not be something we base games on. They aren't film, nor are they art. The elitist nature of fools is irritating, as they strive to hold onto their perception of "gaming", one that only a select few partake in. That seems to be the attitude you display, yet I see no reason to dislike "casual" gaming. It just brings in a new audience, and thats always great for an industry.
Just because you don't like the story doesn't mean others do; and it doesn't make your opinion correct. I also fail to see how Gears of War was not "different" from anything on the market at the time. It sold so well because the gameplay was dramatically different (along with a clever advertising campaign).
EDIT: If this makes no sense...well its late... =S
True, but that doesn't mean all RPG's should be Oblivion (the game I assume your example was from).Malicious said:D_987 said:You shouldn't be...Malicious said:None whatsoever,and proud of it
How can you define a genre when you haven't played such a large portion of said genre?
IMO,RPG and JRPG are different genres,because of the huge culture gap between Japanese and Euro/US culture,so its quite a different game with different style,looks,and target audience,that dont really appeal to me
/sighMalygris said:
Why the hell do people have to keep using this false dichotomy? You can have an excellent plot and story, while still raking in the cash. It all comes down to the money spent on advertising, as most of the art-house type films only have small advertising budgets, when compared to the likes of Michael Bay's tripe, which is spammed everywhere.
Though, the odd bit of escapism can be good, it's just that sh*tty stories, with massive plot holes and bad acting tend to distract from the fun...