VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

1. TheWulf
   Member

   So, since I'm here now, you guys get my long-winded thoughts on things. And yes, this is going to be one of those posts, but I hope you stick around.

   Sometimes, I look at our entertainment and I really don't think it says a lot of good things about us. One of my favourite examples is Skyrim. Not because I hate Skyrim or think it's a bad game, entirely to the contrary, but because I feel games like this could be so much better.

   One of the things that raised my ire about Skyrim is that if a bandit attacks a guard, that guard can then try to convince them to accompany them to jail. The player character never gets this option - and it's especially galling since there are already handcuffs of a sort in the game.

   What I was thinking is that it would have been great if we could have acquired some of those off Jarls, and then used them along with our Speech skill to actually try and reason with the bandits that attack us. To try to get them to accompany the player character quietly to jail and not cause trouble.

   It would be mostly based upon the Speech skill but with a modifier for accounting for the odd crazy. So what would happen then is that you'd have them run follower code, but they'd be unable to attack (like those prisoners the Thalmor and Stormcloak patrols have). You'd take them to the respective hold they're in, and the Jarl would pay you a reasonable bounty for their arrest.

   You could even be corrupt (if you wanted) and offer to put in a good word for them, lowering their jail time, if they let you rummage through their stuff and take whatever you want.

   This way, you're not killing every bandit you see and you're not responsible for mass genocide. But I'm not done there, that's only part of what I was thinking, and I'll get to the other part in just a moment. I will say though that it's a recurring thought for me that in these games I would actually really prefer to be a cop rather than a killer.

   The other thought is that there are critters in the game that one could deal with without killing as well in different ways.

   Let's deal with the sapient ones, first. How about the Hagravens? Some of them actually seem reasonable, so what's up with not being able to reason with them? It just seems ridiculous. Yes, I know some are plot points, but not all are. It'd be nice if, again with a high Speech skill, you could convince them to let you pass alive, for a small price. And for a better price to let you take what you need from their home.

   Perhaps they'd even have a job or two for you.

   Another element that occurs to me is animals in games. Now, one would think that a hunk of meat would have more appeal to an animal than a person in plate armour. So what I don't understand is why we can't toss a hunk of meat at tigers, bears, wolves, or whatnot and then make a run for it, avoiding having to kill.

   What I'm thinking here is that many games have 'kill' as the only option to deal with something. And when it happens to be an RPG that has this problem, it depresses me even more. So it just means that you're this crazy maniac, but it's 2012 now, we're not on ancient hardware that couldn't actually handle the things I'm talking about, after all.

   In fact, mods could likely do these things.

   But I would dearly love it if future RPG developers would take these things into account. Sometimes, I look at our entertainment and I don't feel exactly good about it. Sometimes I think it just doesn't give a very good image of us, and then there's this tiny, nagging feeling at the back of my head that maybe, maybe the critics of games are a tiny bit right.

   So what about you? Would you enjoy being a cop, a diplomat, and a roguish type who'd be able to get out of almost any situation without having to make a kill? Or would you prefer to just slaughter everything anyway?

   I mean, I know some people enjoy it and find it cathartic. But in RPGs at least I keep wishing that developers would provide different ways to approach things. Because, frankly? Fantasy cop - this is an absolutely awesome idea. Maybe it isn't if you're not me, but I love it.

   Just consider: What if that kill count was an 'arrested criminals' count?

   Yeah.

   Posted 1 year ago #

2. TheWulf
   Member

   More thoughts on this...

   Another element that seems to make me not feel like a genocidal maniac is in the presentation and execution. I really think that these are things that developers need to think about. And I'm going to praise Bioware here a bit, because they've done something right.

   In Skyrim, when you enter a bandit cave, you kill all the bandits, you steal their shit and ... oh, what a hero! But not really, right? I mean, those bandits can't really do much to you on even Master difficulty at any level, so using your greater strength to overpower and arrest them would be the reasonable, sane option.

   However, the presentation in Mass Effect 3 is different.

   You have elements like Arlakh Company (the Krogans) or the Turians who've crashed on Tuchanka, and the reapers actually feel like a real threat - not so much to me, but to them. The thing is is that it's obvious who the aggressor is, and it's obvious that if I don't act then a bunch of good people are going to die. And in this case not die to bandits, but to zombies that just don't give a shit.

   That's important to presentation and execution. It means that if I save those Turians, I feel like a hero, and if I don't, I feel shitty, and for the right reasons.

   This is what makes me think that RPGs need to re-evaluate how they work. Heroes shouldn't be dealing with rats and bandits, and if a hero DOES have to deal with bandits, then it shouldn't be too hard to get them to surrender so that you can cart them off to prison as a hero would. That's how it should work.

   I think that developers need to work on this a lot more. If you want to portray the player as a hero, then you actually have to have them do heroic things. If you don't, then you have two options: You either don't treat the player like a hero, or you give the player the option to yell at people about not actually being a hero.

   In Skyrim, I was a genocidal maniac in a world where people had delusions about my heroism. I don't think that that was good presentation or execution. Again, Bethesda need to work on more truly monstrous threats - not just animals or people, but stuff that can't be reasoned with. Elements which clearly define either one party surviving or the other.

   I'm not saying to take bandits or animals out of the next Elder Scrolls game entirely, but rather to deal with them in the way I mentioned - make them more of a passing annoyance rather than something you have to slaughter in cold blood.

   Posted 1 year ago #

3. LOLshock94
   Member

   because diplomats are cunts and cops are boring

   Posted 1 year ago #

4. DrDamn
   Member

   @TheWulf
   Whilst the suggestions can give the player more choice in how they handle situations there needs to be some better definition of success and skill in the resolution. In Skyrim you may well be overpowered but the player does have a connection in how the situation is executed. Right down to each arrow or swing of your axe. A diplomatic option needs to involve the play and make them feel as though the outcome isn't just based on stats *and* doesn't deteriate into a predictable mini-game.

   On a side point Skyrim does seem to have a system in place where you do enough damage and the opponent falls to their knees and seems to capitulate. Never worked out how to do anything but finish them off in that situation though.

   Posted 1 year ago #

5. TheWulf
   Member

   @DrDamn

   The simple solution there is... well, pretty much the obvious one.

   First you do a speech check. This can be calculated on a number of factors, including how intimidating the player is based upon skills/reputation, and how good they are with words. If the player succeeds this check, then they can bypass combat. However, there'll be foes who won't be so easily intimidated no matter how much of a golden tongue you have, or how burly you are.

   In that case, you've brought up the follow-up solution. Once you've damaged them a fair bit, have them beg for mercy and then offer them the option of being arrested again. However, only have them do the beg for mercy if you actually try to get them to surrender in the first place. That way everything works out for the larger majority of people.

   That said, I don't think 'it needs to feel skilful' is a valid reason for graphic depictions of genocide which the player is directly responsible for. Like I said, that doesn't say a lot of good things about us or our entertainment. It makes us look more bloody warlike than the krogan, because what's represented most in games?

   Art? Culture? Diplomacy? Exploration? Experimentation?

   No. Killing. Always killing.

   I mean, sure, you have the odd puzzle game, but the mainstream is flooded with games that are absolutely fixated upon killing. And that's a shame.

   Isn't it a topic that you've given any thought to?

   If not, you may want to. Our entertainment defines us, and I don't exactly feel comfortable being defined by one genocidal maniac after another. I'm more of a philosopher than a fighter anyway, so maybe my particular point of perception is unique to me. But I don't want KILL IT to be the way to bypass every obstacle in a game.

   Posted 1 year ago #

6. TheWulf
   Member

   @LOLshock94

   Sooner a cunt or a bore than a psychopath.

   That's really my point. And I know it isn't for everyone, but I don't want to be defined as a person by things that always centre around warfare and murder.

   See, one of my favourite games that I keep going back to is Uru. It's about art, exploration, discovery, and thinking (it's a Myst game, so there are lots of puzzles). But what I've noticed is that we're not getting quite as many story-based games that are centred around puzzles any more.

   In fact, EVERY story based game is centred around killing with killing as the only option. I'm not sure how many games I could list that actually countermand this in the mainstream. L.A. Noire, and Heavy Rain, maybe? But even then you're dealing with a fixation upon murder and death. (In both cases.)

   Uru was a story-based game which had puzzle progression. That I value. And I look at games today and like I said, I see the only solutions to problems in games are to kill things.

   No intelligence. No mercy. Just point a weapon and pull a trigger.

   And I don't like what that says.

   Posted 1 year ago #

7. DrDamn
   Member

   @TheWulf
   "That said, I don't think 'it needs to feel skilful' is a valid reason for graphic depictions of genocide which the player is directly responsible for."

   True, but if this still needs to be a game to be accepted by the players. Being a psychopath isn't what everyone wants to do, but as a pure game mechanic it's easier for devs to do it that way. In your example it's a check and if true then bypass combat. Ignore the fact it's a psychopathic action and reword down to the basics. Essentially this situation would switch from a test of your and your characters skills in combat to press A to win. I understand that you are adding in a decision process which is an important factor, but in terms of pure game play it's not as attractive to a gamer.

   I'm wondering whether something along the lines of speech recognition could be the way forward. Combine the speech skills of your character with the tone and key words you say as a player into a microphone, and factor in when you say them and words you pick up from the NPC responses.

   I like the general idea of where you are coming from. I'd just like it to be more interactive than you have so far suggested. I'm a big fan of exploration in games, particularly where the designers have made an effort to reward it. It doesn't have to even be a material award, just some recognition that you've taken the time. So it can be visual, or story enhancing.

   Posted 1 year ago #

8. DSB
   Member

   Hyperbole and histrionics aside, no one mistakes videogame violence for actual violence (except for a few conservative fearmongers) and few people have trouble getting into a mindset where killing in a work of fiction is neccesary and warranted.

   It may be boring because there's so much of it going on, though.

   A game like Swat 3 was a lot more intense than similar games precisely because it made you NOT want to shoot someone. It kinda screwed it up by swamping you with enemies in the later missions, so you did end up applying force quite a bit, and that was really a shame.

   The game wasn't about the number of enemies. It was about the one second you had to decide whether a guy was going to give you reason to shoot him or not, and what your weapon might do to him, if you had to.

   That was really cool, and definitely something that's neglected.

   Videogame violence has nothing to do with real violence. Whether you're shooting happy thoughts into the minds of sad little woodland creatures while prancing around in a lush meadow wearing a pink tutu skirt and rainbow glasses, you're still performing the same actions as a guy who's brutally carving his way through the mob - Or whomever assaulted his fairy princess.

   I'm pretty sure 99% of gamers are balanced enough to realize that.

   I can't say I love voice controls. It's a cool gimmick, and End War actually did a pretty great job of incorporating it. But it really is just a gimmick. I don't think we need to be yelling at computers.

   Posted 1 year ago #

9. DrDamn
   Member

   @DSB
   I don't think TheWulf's original point was much to do with knowing the difference, it was about actively wanting to take a different approach - but games being so narrow that the only choice is to kill everything.

   Posted 1 year ago #

10. DSB
    Member

    It was in response to the melodrama, referencing genocide and asking what it says about us.

    Trying to define those things through entertainment media is a fool's errand.

    Gaming has always been very set in its ways, and part of that is the neccesity to focus on limiting players to a set of actions, especially if you're talking about very visual games.

    Trying to enable everyone to do everything is something I'd call the Molyneux-paradox. You may have great intentions and it may look great on paper, but in reality you're creating so many variables, and such a workload that the game suffers.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.