Gears of War Designer: "The Future of Shooters is RPGs"

[D_987]

I stopped caring the same second I read Cliffy B's name, he hasn't made a single good game since freaking Jack Jazzrabbit. Though Shadow Complex might change that.

Well, my opinion on Cliffy B is that he's nothing but a real life troll. But yeah, for the first time in his life, he actually has somewhat of a point.

Cliffy B is not working on Shadow Complex, Cloud, a company owned by EPIC games are the masterminds behind said game. As for "he hasn't made a good game"; I'm pretty sure a large percentage of gamers would disagree - with the Unreal Tournament and Gears of War on his pedigree.

 

[D_987]

Shooters plus rpg is a no no,action rpg ok,but shooters i play if i wanna kill stuff,rpg when i want story,gameplay and to spend a lot of time on

This quote is extremely difficult to understand...

What's wrong with a good story in a shooter?

 

[randommaster]

"We never said we were making Shakespeare; this is a Michael Bay film, go with it," he continued. "I would much rather be the guy who makes a game that sells millions of copies that people love to make fun of - because that's what people do on the internet - than the guy who makes a critical darling that no one really knows about."

Well then, Mister B, you and Tim Schafer are on two separate wavelengths. And while Gears of War IS pretty good, I'll stick to Psychonauts, if only to set squirrels and girl scouts on fire.

That said, I think he may be on to something with FPS games quasi-evolving into RPGs as a form of gaming evolution.

The last thing we need is for people to have to shoot twenty rats to be able to carry more ammo.

Fallout and Bioshock were cool, but put much more RPG into them and you get a pile of poo.

 

[The Bandit]

While I agree that RPG elements in FPS games are the future, I don't agree that filling FPS games up with dialog and story is.

Bioshock was successful because it used the formula of choice. Remove that choice and it sucks.

RPG's are about choice.

I think Bioshock was successful because it was "omg deep story." Not really choice. There wasn't much choice. It was kill or not kill little girls.

 

[KDR_11k]

Bleh. RPG videogames tend to be about numbers more than about skill while shooters are supposed to be about, well, shooting. I don't want my games to tell me I can't damage the large rat because I didn't waste enough time shooting small rats. Hellgate suffered somewhat from enemies taking too much damage to down which made the weapons feel really pathetic. I also don't think that endless cutscenes will improve the experience of nailing dudes to walls with huge stakes or shooting dudes with shurikens and lightning.

 

[Blind0bserver]

he continued. "I would much rather be the guy who makes a game that sells millions of copies that people love to make fun of - because that's what people do on the internet - than the guy who makes a critical darling that no one really knows about."

Yeah, because when I think heroes, I think of Vanguard rather than Tim Schafer. Why make original stuff when you can jump on the latest bandwagon?

I take great offense to this piece of unintentional slander, Root.

Still, I understand Cliffy's reasoning but that doesn't keep me from considering him an ingrate for believing it. From what he's witnessed GTA and Halo clones make money, and depending on the game usually lots of it. From that point of view why bother trying to "be creative"? *pfft* It isn't like we can exactly "stop" developers and publishers from perpetuating this, either. Believe me, we've tried, and we've gotten questionable results...

Spoiler

Anyway, right about now we get to where I start considering Cliffy B to be a worthless cretin. People like, say, Tim Schafer may not make money hand over fist because he's taking risks by being innovative and trying new things, but he does have something that Cliffy doesn't have: respect and a good reputation. Ask around these forums alone. Most people that know who Shafer is will have nothing but good things to say about him while on the other hand they'll offer up the opinion that Cliffy B is a douche bag.

Keep in mind that all of these comments are coming from a person that grew up playing Unreal Tournament, so I'm well aware that he has been involved, both directly and otherwise, in making games that are considered by a widespread group of people to be "good". Still, his comments show that he outright endorses the stagnation of our industry by using the same concepts over and over again instead of taking a risk and trying something new. Despite all he has done (which is a lot), he will never have my respect because of this.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

"I would much rather be the guy who makes a game that sells millions of copies that people love to make fun of - because that's what people do on the internet - than the guy who makes a critical darling that no one really knows about."

Cliffy B may be a bit of a dink sometimes, but this quote is actually really excellent, and I completely agree with him.

Say what you will about the Halo, Gears of War, and similar game franchises...but numbers don't lie. And I'm not talking the ratings score numbers. I'm talking the millions of games sold. Halo, in particular, seems to receive a healthy dose of bashing on the internet, but the game sold (And still sells) very very well. Which means that millions of people are enjoying the game.

Then you get people like Tim Schafer who makes great games (Grim Fandango and Psychonauts, as examples for those who don't know) and are critically acclaimed...and sell like crap. Everyone says it's awesome, so why isn't it selling? I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why they flop at the register, but the bottom line is the bottom line: How much did it sell?

And Cliffy B is that guy that he describes. People ridicule him and the Gears narrative and the like for being so brutish and childish and cliche...but in the end, he's selling millions of copies of his game and falling ass-backwards into money. So who is really laughing here?

You have a good point, but consider this. People attribute games like Gears and Halo as the main reason why gaming is starting to become more "mainstream", and as a result, they see it as a death mark on gaming.

Look at Shadows of The Colossus, killer7, Beyond Good and Evil, Okami and Psychonauts, the common thing about them is that they are all games with different, more precarious ideas in games, they were all critically acclaimed, but they sold terribly. They're bound to form cult followings, but what I'm saying is that tastes change. FPS games won't matter a damn thing in the next 2-3 console generations.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

Cliff buttfucksky better not fuck up gears of war.

... How does one fuck up gears of war? Are you implying that adding something deeper than Explosions and gore is "fucking it up"?

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Still, I understand Cliffy's reasoning but that doesn't keep me from considering him an ingrate for believing it. From what he's witnessed GTA and Halo clones make money, and depending on the game usually lots of it. From that point of view why bother trying to "be creative"? *pfft* It isn't like we can exactly "stop" developers and publishers from perpetuating this, either. Believe me, we've tried, and we've gotten questionable results....

I call bullshit. It's called capitalism. Developers and publishers are scared shitless of trying out new concepts to work with and make games with because they won't be able to turn a profit. They stick to established molds, and build their own concepts, borrowed or not, in the game, regardless of quality. It's not a question of creativity, it's a question of taking risks.

 

[KickerCutleg]

While I agree that RPG elements in FPS games are the future, I don't agree that filling FPS games up with dialog and story is.

Bioshock was successful because it used the formula of choice. Remove that choice and it sucks.

RPG's are about choice.

I agree, Too Human tried filling space with unskippable dialogue, and, while Mass Effect did it better, there was still too much dialogue, and more action and challenge is needed in both cases.

 

[Credge]

I think Bioshock was successful because it was "omg deep story." Not really choice. There wasn't much choice. It was kill or not kill little girls.

You kind of missed the point.

The GAMEPLAY had choice duderino. You can choose not only how you want to play the game, but you can choose how you want to deal with the situations given to you.

You can lure that Big Daddy in to a bunch of hacked turrets or use a target dummy and shoot him with all of your weapons or use various plasmids to take him down or use them all.

Most FPS give you the choice of shooting the enemy or dying.

Also, Bioshock had a terrible story.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

Not sure about this. I can't see a more complicated version of the FPS genre dominating the main one.

And...Michael Bay of all examples? Mirror image of Cliffy's absurdly profitable unoriginal action products.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I'd replace the term "future" with "has nowhere else to go".

There is a functional limitation on how much you can do with running around and shooting at each other. Add more players, add bigger guns, add vehicles, add bigger levels, etc. You just run out of options to add within the confines of the genre. You either have the STALKER/Far Cry 2 idea of sandbox FPS play or you figure out a way to make the gameplay we already all understand pace in a more interesting manner than run & shoot.

 

[Cortheya]

As a great RPG fan myself, I would applaud this shift into RPGS.

 

[Credge]

Cliff buttfucksky better not fuck up gears of war.

... How does one fuck up gears of war? Are you implying that adding something deeper than Explosions and gore is "fucking it up"?

You fuck up Gears by adding RPG elements that don't revolve around gameplay. I.E. useless dialog.

One thing I've noticed here at the Escapist is a huge tendency to want ZOMG AMAZING STORY in games. Do you REAAAAAALLY want interactive fiction?

People STILL complain about MGS4's cut scenes. STILL. The reality is, you don't want amazing stories, you don't even want stories. You seem to think you want stories when, in reality, these terrible stories have been forced upon you to make up for a lack of quality and fun game play. The result is the gamer blaming story for games being meh now instead of blaming the game play that is truly craptacular.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I always thought that FPS had a strong RPG influence from the start. No offence to little CliffyB, but I would rather have heard from Harvey Smith than him.

 

[13lackfriday]

Shoter RPGs are great like Fallout 3, but I don't think there will ever be a Gears of War RPG since RPGs have good stories.

That's exactly what I had in mind.
Though more fast-paced combat in a shooter-RPG would be appreciated.

Gears of War right now is the epitome of brainless, dudely fist-bumping, testosterone-injected FPS. It started out unfortunately that way, and since it established its niche there, it can't significantly alter its original formula for success.
The story definitely isn't fantastic...most plot twists and developments you can see a mile ahead, but it gets the job done, and gives you reason enough for continuing the fight.

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

So Bleszkinski would rather be a sellout than a creative artist.
Also, I would say that although the RPG elements of bioshock (squint and look to the side and you can see them) were good, that game isn't revered because it had RPG elements. I loved bioshock for the atmosphere and plot.