I've just recently (like a week ago) discovered adventure games like The Longest Journey and Syberia. All I can say is...I missed out big time...and I'm glad I get a chance to catch up.
Right now I'm totally hooked on The Longest Journey... Oh man, the story, the characters, the dialogues (humor!), the puzzles...the list goes on and on. Anyway, it got me thinking about game design...or to be more specific: gameplay mechanics.
Take a random contemporary "triple A" game and you'll most likely be playing a game (unless it's racing or sports of course) where progression is measured in body count....you need to kill your opponents in order to progress. There can be an element of stealth involved...but usually the opponents "smell" you and come rushing to their death (usually effected by flying lead).
Sometimes the objective is just to get to some point on the map...but your opponents just so happen to have entrenched themselves/ put up a road block...whatever. In most games (certainly on the higher difficulty setting) this means you are forced to kill them...hey it's them or you, right?
I haven't encountered many games that have a fullfilling alternative to this gameplay mechanic.
Sure...there are games like Metal Gear Solid where you don't need to lay a finger on most patrolling henchmen...but when it comes to the boss battles...well, that's a different story. In the end, MGS is still about "kill or be killed" though.
IMHO it's kinda sad that in contemporary gaming one of the first questions that will prolly pop up in one's mind when excited by a new game: "Who or what do I get to kill?"
Aliens?
Zombies?
Mutants?
Supernaturals?
Terrorists?
Soldiers?
Thugs?
I understand that the whole "Kill or be killed" concept, combined with the "Run & Gun" gameplay mechanic is what gave us some of the greatest games ever...fun games...cool games.
But IMHO there's not much room for exploration. Allow me to elaborate:
A game can have a new enemy (like a new, weird looking species of alien)...it's still an enemy you have to kill.
A game can have new weaponry....it's still weaponry made to kill.
A game can have outlandishly designed levels...they're still just area's you have to travel through...while killing the enemy in it.
What I'm saying is: the archetype doesn't change. Forms change but the substance (functions, processes) remains the same. For instance, the difference between a game like Call of Duty MW2, Gears of War 2, Killzone 2 and, say, Resident Evil 5 is one of form. Core gameplaywise you're still playing the same game: travel through area's to the final area while killing the enemy en route.
All the exploration in terms of form (including art styles) can't hide that in substance it's all the same. The game ends when you've progressed (killing and walking on) through all the area's and killed the final enemy in the final area.
I think it's wrong to quit here...as if this gameplay mechanic is the Holy Grail, The End of History, the Summum of Creativity beyond which lies nothing. We need to move on...out of the swamp that stunts creative growth.
Or get your copy of "Evil Zone of Gears Duty 14" in a few years
(credit goes to a fellow escapist from who I partly "borrowed" this one...you know who you are)
It's really time for some variety...cuz eating "chicken" every single day of your (short) life is really unhealthy. But that's what we're served by the industry nowadays. It's time to tell the "chef" he needs to learn some new "recipes" or we won't be visiting his "restaurant" any longer.
Gamers of the world unite! You've only got your "fastfood chains" to lose...
Right now I'm totally hooked on The Longest Journey... Oh man, the story, the characters, the dialogues (humor!), the puzzles...the list goes on and on. Anyway, it got me thinking about game design...or to be more specific: gameplay mechanics.
Take a random contemporary "triple A" game and you'll most likely be playing a game (unless it's racing or sports of course) where progression is measured in body count....you need to kill your opponents in order to progress. There can be an element of stealth involved...but usually the opponents "smell" you and come rushing to their death (usually effected by flying lead).
Sometimes the objective is just to get to some point on the map...but your opponents just so happen to have entrenched themselves/ put up a road block...whatever. In most games (certainly on the higher difficulty setting) this means you are forced to kill them...hey it's them or you, right?
I haven't encountered many games that have a fullfilling alternative to this gameplay mechanic.
Sure...there are games like Metal Gear Solid where you don't need to lay a finger on most patrolling henchmen...but when it comes to the boss battles...well, that's a different story. In the end, MGS is still about "kill or be killed" though.
IMHO it's kinda sad that in contemporary gaming one of the first questions that will prolly pop up in one's mind when excited by a new game: "Who or what do I get to kill?"
Aliens?
Zombies?
Mutants?
Supernaturals?
Terrorists?
Soldiers?
Thugs?
I understand that the whole "Kill or be killed" concept, combined with the "Run & Gun" gameplay mechanic is what gave us some of the greatest games ever...fun games...cool games.
But IMHO there's not much room for exploration. Allow me to elaborate:
A game can have a new enemy (like a new, weird looking species of alien)...it's still an enemy you have to kill.
A game can have new weaponry....it's still weaponry made to kill.
A game can have outlandishly designed levels...they're still just area's you have to travel through...while killing the enemy in it.
What I'm saying is: the archetype doesn't change. Forms change but the substance (functions, processes) remains the same. For instance, the difference between a game like Call of Duty MW2, Gears of War 2, Killzone 2 and, say, Resident Evil 5 is one of form. Core gameplaywise you're still playing the same game: travel through area's to the final area while killing the enemy en route.
All the exploration in terms of form (including art styles) can't hide that in substance it's all the same. The game ends when you've progressed (killing and walking on) through all the area's and killed the final enemy in the final area.
I think it's wrong to quit here...as if this gameplay mechanic is the Holy Grail, The End of History, the Summum of Creativity beyond which lies nothing. We need to move on...out of the swamp that stunts creative growth.
Or get your copy of "Evil Zone of Gears Duty 14" in a few years
(credit goes to a fellow escapist from who I partly "borrowed" this one...you know who you are)
It's really time for some variety...cuz eating "chicken" every single day of your (short) life is really unhealthy. But that's what we're served by the industry nowadays. It's time to tell the "chef" he needs to learn some new "recipes" or we won't be visiting his "restaurant" any longer.
Gamers of the world unite! You've only got your "fastfood chains" to lose...
