Gears of War Designer: "The Future of Shooters is RPGs"
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'm going to be a good little enraged gamer and actually respond to the topic of the thread first.
I love shooters. I loved the first Halo. I loved Half-Life 2. I love Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor. Gears of War is one of my very favorite games of all time. I love capping a ***** as much as the next guy.
I love RPGs, mainly MMOs. I liked Final Fantasy XII. I liked Dungeon Siege. I loved Kingdom Hearts. I love City of Heroes. I loved what of WoW was done right. I love developing a character and roleplaying.
I love when the two are put together well. I loved Bioshock and I loved Mass Effect. Action and roleplaying, two great things put together.
But they don't always need to be put together. Gears of War is great because it's action. Nothing but action, and non-stop action, nothing to get in the way of the storyline or the combat. Achievements are all well and good, but you don't need any kind of RPG system in Gears. Ever. For any reason. You hear me, Bleszinski? You already took my Gears 2 on PC from me. Don't you go and screw this great franchise up. I will hunt you down.
With that out of the way... to all you fine gentlemen who say that the Gears story is crappy? Are you writers yourselves? I doubt it, because the storyline of Gears (at least Gears 1 - thanks to our good friends at Epic I haven't had the opportunity to play the second one) is the purest form of storytelling I've seen in quite a while. Gears' story isn't really a story, it's a plot. It's a sequence of events that run quickly after one another - with characters that fully understand that they are in the world they are in - they never acknowledge the camera. Things happened in the past. Marcus and Dom know that they happened. You don't. That doesn't matter to them. They're talking to one another - not to you. Not to the camera. Events flow into events - one after another in a logical progression until the story reaches its climax. It's storytelling in an incredibly pure form and it's never sacrificed for gameplay.
The characters? Sure, they're stereotypical and full of testosterone. They're soldiers. In a future fighting a merciless inhuman enemy and where Starcraft-esque stimulants are probably commonplace. Of course they are. And they're not stereotypical because they're characters. they're stereotypical because they're archetypes of all the people who fight in a war.
Marcus is the career soldier. The one who's devoted his life to fighting because he has no choice and he believes in what he's fighting for. "If we don't, we're gonna spend the rest of our lives running from shit like this."
Dom is the one who tries to hide the fact that the war has ruined his life and taken away everything he loves by pretending he's having fun.
Cole is the one who couldn't care less - to him, war is just a game, and will stay that way until his bloody-mindedness and dumb luck run out. Certain quotes of his when he's incapped, though, hint at a vulnerable shell under his cocky exterior...
Baird is the man who's been destroyed by the war; Already distrustful and independent; he loves to be in control. The chaos and unpredictability of war has made him paranoid and afraid.
I love Gears' story. F.E.A.R. was a horror movie in game form? This is an action movie in game form. But it's one with a story. It's another reason I'm looking forward to the Gears of War movie. They don't have to express the subtleties of Gears. They could make it just like the game, where you can choose to appreciate them or just have fun with the chainsaws and bullets. I would enjoy both movies. But I'll be hopeful until it comes out.
Gears will never be remembered as one of the great stories of the time. But don't you ever tell me it's badly written.
Edit:
But then you had the Smashing Pumpkins trailer and I think everyone in the theater was IN. Sacrifice should have been a huge hit with how good a game it was - a flawless melding of RPG and RTS - and yet no one has heard of it. Why? Search me.
I love shooters. I loved the first Halo. I loved Half-Life 2. I love Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor. Gears of War is one of my very favorite games of all time. I love capping a ***** as much as the next guy.
I love RPGs, mainly MMOs. I liked Final Fantasy XII. I liked Dungeon Siege. I loved Kingdom Hearts. I love City of Heroes. I loved what of WoW was done right. I love developing a character and roleplaying.
I love when the two are put together well. I loved Bioshock and I loved Mass Effect. Action and roleplaying, two great things put together.
But they don't always need to be put together. Gears of War is great because it's action. Nothing but action, and non-stop action, nothing to get in the way of the storyline or the combat. Achievements are all well and good, but you don't need any kind of RPG system in Gears. Ever. For any reason. You hear me, Bleszinski? You already took my Gears 2 on PC from me. Don't you go and screw this great franchise up. I will hunt you down.
With that out of the way... to all you fine gentlemen who say that the Gears story is crappy? Are you writers yourselves? I doubt it, because the storyline of Gears (at least Gears 1 - thanks to our good friends at Epic I haven't had the opportunity to play the second one) is the purest form of storytelling I've seen in quite a while. Gears' story isn't really a story, it's a plot. It's a sequence of events that run quickly after one another - with characters that fully understand that they are in the world they are in - they never acknowledge the camera. Things happened in the past. Marcus and Dom know that they happened. You don't. That doesn't matter to them. They're talking to one another - not to you. Not to the camera. Events flow into events - one after another in a logical progression until the story reaches its climax. It's storytelling in an incredibly pure form and it's never sacrificed for gameplay.
The characters? Sure, they're stereotypical and full of testosterone. They're soldiers. In a future fighting a merciless inhuman enemy and where Starcraft-esque stimulants are probably commonplace. Of course they are. And they're not stereotypical because they're characters. they're stereotypical because they're archetypes of all the people who fight in a war.
Marcus is the career soldier. The one who's devoted his life to fighting because he has no choice and he believes in what he's fighting for. "If we don't, we're gonna spend the rest of our lives running from shit like this."
Dom is the one who tries to hide the fact that the war has ruined his life and taken away everything he loves by pretending he's having fun.
Cole is the one who couldn't care less - to him, war is just a game, and will stay that way until his bloody-mindedness and dumb luck run out. Certain quotes of his when he's incapped, though, hint at a vulnerable shell under his cocky exterior...
Baird is the man who's been destroyed by the war; Already distrustful and independent; he loves to be in control. The chaos and unpredictability of war has made him paranoid and afraid.
I love Gears' story. F.E.A.R. was a horror movie in game form? This is an action movie in game form. But it's one with a story. It's another reason I'm looking forward to the Gears of War movie. They don't have to express the subtleties of Gears. They could make it just like the game, where you can choose to appreciate them or just have fun with the chainsaws and bullets. I would enjoy both movies. But I'll be hopeful until it comes out.
Gears will never be remembered as one of the great stories of the time. But don't you ever tell me it's badly written.
Edit:
A very good point: Gears is another good example - it had that AMAZING first trailer - the Mad World one - the iconic image of the Lancer, and the Epic name behind it. I'll also mention the Watchmen movie as being extremely well marketed. If you'd just said "Watchmen movie" everyone who read the book would have seen it, and a few other people who like comic book movies would have seen it.
But then you had the Smashing Pumpkins trailer and I think everyone in the theater was IN. Sacrifice should have been a huge hit with how good a game it was - a flawless melding of RPG and RTS - and yet no one has heard of it. Why? Search me.
Whether he's right or wrong on this I've learned a long time ago to dismiss anything that douchebag says. He was an idiot back in the day, and he's an idiot now. That he's still employed in the industry says a lot about the industry itself.
It's absurd to say shooters are heading towards the RPG-genre because that statement in itself is so meaningless. Which aspect is it? Blatant number-based statistics behind every character, intensive stories, or simply choice?
Obviously, a lot of games are doing this in any number of capacities right now. Far Cry 2 was one of my favorite games of last year because of how well it pulled it off (to me) and I think Bleszinski must have missed that one. You get to choose who lives and dies, how to go about the missions, what your character's really in it for. The first time I subverted a faction mission with a buddy-NPC, then met up with her as a final gunfight to the series of events ensued, cleared out all the enemies, and had to go help her, and was given the choice to use some of my syrettes to heal her, or pull out my side-arm to essentially euthanize her:
^ that was a big moment for me and I realized what Far Cry 2 was really all about.
So, to me, it's redundant for him to throw out generic arbitrary statements, when alot of developers (who also make money) are doing it right now, and well in some cases.
Obviously, a lot of games are doing this in any number of capacities right now. Far Cry 2 was one of my favorite games of last year because of how well it pulled it off (to me) and I think Bleszinski must have missed that one. You get to choose who lives and dies, how to go about the missions, what your character's really in it for. The first time I subverted a faction mission with a buddy-NPC, then met up with her as a final gunfight to the series of events ensued, cleared out all the enemies, and had to go help her, and was given the choice to use some of my syrettes to heal her, or pull out my side-arm to essentially euthanize her:
^ that was a big moment for me and I realized what Far Cry 2 was really all about.
So, to me, it's redundant for him to throw out generic arbitrary statements, when alot of developers (who also make money) are doing it right now, and well in some cases.
I agree with the title and Mr. Developper, in fact, it is already happening, ever heard of Mass Effect, Bioshock, or Fallout 3?
Damn, I was thinking I couldn't possibly hate the guy more but damn...
Michael Bay movies are shit, it doesn't matter how many tickets they sold. If you have any kind of artistic integrity then you would try everything possible to distance yourself from the work of Bay.
I thought Gears of War 2 was pretty decent and not too bad a game but that was only because of the solid gameplay and co-op and everything else was below par. Why not take these aspects and create a good game around them?
I'll take my Abe's Oddysey, Last Guardian and the likes over any of your new games any day Mr.B.
God, here's me thinking I couldn't possibly hate this industry any more...
I couldn't disagree more. Everything Cliffy said and you agreed with was basically 'I'd rather turn out shit and appeal to the lowest common denominator rather than producing a good game'.Baby Tea said:
Michael Bay movies are shit, it doesn't matter how many tickets they sold. If you have any kind of artistic integrity then you would try everything possible to distance yourself from the work of Bay.
I thought Gears of War 2 was pretty decent and not too bad a game but that was only because of the solid gameplay and co-op and everything else was below par. Why not take these aspects and create a good game around them?
I'll take my Abe's Oddysey, Last Guardian and the likes over any of your new games any day Mr.B.
God, here's me thinking I couldn't possibly hate this industry any more...
I sense that Cliffy B and many posters of this thread are unaware that RPG doesn't mean "Growing stats". RPG means Role Playing. Crafting your own story within the limitations of the game. Being able to totally ignore the main quest and go do whatever you like. Mass Effect and the first two Fallouts are really the only two electronic RPGs. All the rest are pen and paper.
Explain yourself. Now.Credge said:
Give me Gears of War's combat system and Mass Effects level of customization and immersion and I'll be in gaming heaven.
I wish they would make FPS games like the old ones just with better graphics.
Less really is more sometimes.
No arena FPS will do well with the clunky unoriginal movement systems that games have nowadays.
No truly story-based FPS will ever be taken seriously unless it's told in a pivotal manner, I think. (ie: there can only really be ONE "Bioshock" of the FPS genre)
I do agree with the Deus Ex designer here, because I've loved the good blends that I've played of this. Granted, maybe I'm just bad, because I actually enjoyed the demo I played of Diakatana a long time ago.
To make a game interesting, you need to revolutionize something. Controls, Sound, Storytelling, Graphics, and the classic "GAMEPLAY" (ie, holding w while you hold mouse1 and wave randomly with a chaingun (or perhaps that's only the people on my team, eh?)).
What I think FPS needs to do is on the path of Descent 2. Or 1, or 3, or the new one that just might maybe come out..Descent 4.
We need more really 3d environments, more vertical levels, more interesting yet confusing yet challenging places to be. If you can't change what you're doing, or what you do it with, at least change what you're doing it to, and where you're doing it!
Less really is more sometimes.
No arena FPS will do well with the clunky unoriginal movement systems that games have nowadays.
No truly story-based FPS will ever be taken seriously unless it's told in a pivotal manner, I think. (ie: there can only really be ONE "Bioshock" of the FPS genre)
I do agree with the Deus Ex designer here, because I've loved the good blends that I've played of this. Granted, maybe I'm just bad, because I actually enjoyed the demo I played of Diakatana a long time ago.
To make a game interesting, you need to revolutionize something. Controls, Sound, Storytelling, Graphics, and the classic "GAMEPLAY" (ie, holding w while you hold mouse1 and wave randomly with a chaingun (or perhaps that's only the people on my team, eh?)).
What I think FPS needs to do is on the path of Descent 2. Or 1, or 3, or the new one that just might maybe come out..Descent 4.
We need more really 3d environments, more vertical levels, more interesting yet confusing yet challenging places to be. If you can't change what you're doing, or what you do it with, at least change what you're doing it to, and where you're doing it!
He usually carries a plastic lancer around with him so you probably won't have to search very far.RedMenace said:
I would rather have a well written and enjoyable narrative than a Micky Bay shitfest, never aim for his level.
That's bottom of the barrel.
That's bottom of the barrel.
