The Gamer's Quarter

[Ketch]

It seems to me that the need for a game to have thousands of enemies in it, so that the player can mindlessly but enjoyably slaughter them is coming to an end. We are getting to the stage where we could make games with lots of different objectives that would allow the player to feel as though they are a) taking part in a story, rather than an early Arnie "The Governator" film.

Games like Tony Hawk's Underground and Grand Theft Auto have many varied tasks that use certain game mechanisms in different ways to make quite varid objectives (ie. they aren't *all* about killing -especially in THUG).

I imagine a game which would involve you in a story by giving you tasks ie. look after the princess as she goes on her evening walk. At which point the princess would be captured by the "big bad foozle". Instead of giving you a game over because you failed to protect her, this would be a scripted failure that would give the enemy a gameplay advantage over you so that you could not rescue her at that time. Ie. If you try to chase the princess and her kidnapper's they have a faster horse / dragon that allows them to get away.

So here it would be a way of fixing the story through gameplay means ie. because the player has slower equipment they CANNOT get the princess back.

But, the player sees where they take her (ie. into the huge castle in the distance) and so can start to follow. When he gets to a bridge guarded by a troll, who won't let him get by unless he is distracted by food. So the player has to fish or hunt to carry on.

The aim would be to make a game which feels like an *adventure* (and is as varied as an old adventure game) but carried out through in-game actions rather than by point and click.

The game would aim to get rid of the visible structure of missions that is in THUG, and instead make a more natural environment where you would see what needs to be done and then try to do it.

Thoughts?

[BrokenFiction]

I've been craving these types of adventures lately, ones that harken back to the original King's Quest series, where the emphasis was on exploration, discovery, figuring out puzzles, etc. Why kill the troll when you can lead him away from it with the irritable donkey, which you can only get with the carrot on a stick. You have to get the carrot by clearing the farmer's field of rabbits, and the stick with string by fishing...etc...etc... You get the idea.

I love smacking down baddies as much as the next guy, but I miss this style of gameplay. So, I'm with you all the way.

[Shapermc]

Combat is the most simplistic of ways to invoke interaction, which is what video games are all about. So why go through the hassle of figuring out new ways of interaction when you don't need to?

I think that the main problem is the market. While the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" would make a good game. You have chess sequences where you start out as a low level player all the way to the end tournament, telling a dramatic story in the gaps. No one would buy it. Uwe Boll can get Ben Kingsly for Bloodrayne the movie, but I bet hard earned cash Company X would not have gotten Ben Kingsly for the role he played in SfBF had it been pitched as a game over a film.

So you have two problems. One is that we are still in somewhat simplistic forms of expression, and two that we have no market for anything else. Games like Phoenix Wright (which is out of print and mostly sold out according to hearsay) points to an improvement in this. Same with Trauma Center. Riven (well Myst, then amplified by Riven) also solved the need for combat issue.

I am sure dhex can explain the combat = interaction thing better.

[SuperWes]

I agree with Shaper. There's not really a market for non-combat games, and there's not really a good replacement for it just yet.

The best games understand that combat is less the point, and more a means of keeping the player involved in between the game's events, puzzles, and/or exploration. The game that you seem to be looking for does exist and has existed for a long, long time (check out Grim Fandango, Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit, Myst, Lost in Blue, Leisure Suit Larry, or one of numerous text adventures), but the problem is that there's generally not much going on to keep your fingers busy in between the game events and the pacing tends to suffer. Thinking about it, the one thing that all of the aforementioned titles shares is a slow pacing. Without combat there's just not usually a whole lot to keep your mind and fingers busy. I think Tim Shaffer realized this when he made Psychonauts. It contains everything that makes a text adventure great, but it's all layered on top of the conventions of a platformer. There are entire levels without combat (ok one, and that level does have a boss).

So we're stuck with a dilemma. Do you make a game that puts combat in as a way to keep the player interested, or do you make a game without combat at the expense of entertainment? I think it's most important to keep a player interested. These ARE video games, right?

-Wes
_________________

[player 2]

Resident Evil 4 makes combat the entire game.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[BrokenFiction]

What about games like Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing (as two quick examples)? I don't know sales figures (worldwide or domestic), but it seems that there is a market for these non-combat types. Both are nominally RPGs, which is a slight departure from the adventure genre, but not too much of a stretch.

There was once an incredible market for games like this, and I just think it would take the right game and the right platform to pull it off. Obviously, the Revolution comes to mind, but the DS could do it just as well.

[Lackey]

[Shapermc]

[BrokenFiction]

[Shapermc]

[Szczepaniak]

Some kind of sock-like (or even contraceptive-like) "skin" you slip over your Rev "pad" to enhance it?

The mind boggles!

[Lackey]

Harvest Moon is fun because it's hand on. It could be any RPG game the way you navigate and manipulate the environment.

I mean, it's more fun than SimFarm which is a more robust simulation.

As a counter-example, Sands of Time would have been a lot more fun if there was no combat to slow down the pace.
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game |

[SuperWes]

[BrokenFiction]

[Shapermc]

[dessgeega]

[BrokenFiction]

[Shapermc]

[dark steve]

Yikes.

[dessgeega]

[Ketch]

[Lackey]

About fish: That's how Sega Bass Fishing and Sega Marine Fishing for the Dreamcast work. They are based on arcade games though, it makes sense.

[Shapermc]

[SuperWes]

The driving and sports game thing is probably the most obvious counter-argument to this original topic. There's a huge market for these things and - in America at least - these are probably the biggest selling games. They're also the type of games that lack empathy, but that's a different topic altogether.

Back to Prince of Persia. I forgot about mentioning this before, but Ubisoft's recent King Kong game does a pretty good job of mixing combat and acrobatics during the Kong sections. The goal of these sections is generally to keep the girl from getting eaten by keeping any enemies near her busy. So you end up fighting a bunch of stuff, then chasing her down by doing some cool-looking acrobatic stuff, then finding her and keeping the enemies away from her again. It wouldn't work for an entire game, but it works well in the context.

-Wes
_________________

[Shapermc]

[SuperWes]

[Shapermc]

[SuperWes]

Found the sales! Turns out that I was right and I have been for the past 3 years at least:

2005 Video Games
1 MADDEN NFL 06 PS2 ELECTRONIC ARTS Aug-05 $46
2 POKEMON EMERALD GBA NINTENDO OF AMERICA Apr-05 $34
3 GRAN TURISMO 4 PS2 SONY COMPUTER ENT. Feb-05 $49
4 MADDEN NFL 06 XBX ELECTRONIC ARTS Aug-05 $47
5 NCAA FOOTBALL 06 PS2 ELECTRONIC ARTS Jul-05 $48
6 STAR WARS: BATTLEFRONT II PS2 LUCASARTS Nov-05 $47
7 MVP BASEBALL 2005 PS2 ELECTRONIC ARTS Feb-05 $29
8 STAR WARS EPISODE III:REVENGE OF THE SITH PS2 LUCASARTS May-05 $47
9 NBA LIVE 06 PS2 ELECTRONIC ARTS Sep-05 $44
10 LEGO STAR WARS PS2 EIDOS Mar-05 $37

2005 PC
1 World Of Warcraft Vivendi Universal Nov-04 $47
2 The Sims 2: University Expansion Pack Electronic Arts Feb-05 $33
3 The Sims 2 Electronic Arts Sep-04 $45
4 Guild Wars Ncsoft Apr-05 $48
5 Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 Atari Oct-04 $30
6 Battlefield 2 Electronic Arts Jun-05 $48
7 The Sims 2 Nightlife Expansion Pack Electronic Arts Sep-05 $32
8 MS Age Of Empires III Microsoft Oct-05 $47
9 The Sims Deluxe Electronic Arts Sep-02 $19
10 Call Of Duty 2 Activision Oct-05 $46

2004 Video Games
1 - Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - PS2 - Take II Interactive
2 - Halo 2* - XBX - Microsoft
3 - Madden NFL 2005* - PS2 - Electronic Arts
4 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - PS2 - Take II Interactive
5 - Need For Speed: Underground 2 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
6 - Pokemon Fire Red W/ Adapter - GBA - Nintendo of America
7 - NBA Live 2005 - PS2 - Electronic Arts
8 - Spider-Man: The Movie 2 - PS2 - Activision
9 - Halo - XBX - Microsoft
10 - ESPN NFL 2K5 - XBX - Take II Interactive
*Includes Limited & Collector’s Editions

2003 Top 10 Console Video Game Titles By Units
1 - MADDEN NFL 2004 - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
2 - POKEMON RUBY - GBA - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
3 - POKEMON SAPPHIRE - GBA - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
4 - NEED SPEED: UNDERGROUND - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS
5 - ZELDA: THE WIND WAKER - GCN - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
6 - GRAND THEFT AUTO: VICE - PS2 - ROCKSTAR GAMES
7 - MARIO KART: DOUBLE - GCN - NINTENDO OF AMERICA
8 - TONY HAWK UNDERGROUND - PS2 - ACTIVISION
9 - ENTER THE MATRIX - PS2 - ATARI
10 - MEDAL HONOR RISING - PS2 - ELECTRONIC ARTS

2003 Top 10 PC Video Game Titles By Units
1 - THE SIMS: SUPERSTAR EXPANSION PACK - WIN - ELECTRONIC ARTS
2 - THE SIMS DELUXE - WIN - ELECTRONIC ARTS
3 - COMMAND & CONQUER: GENERALS - WIN - ELECTRONIC ARTS
4 - WARCRAFT III: FROZEN THRONE EXPANSION PACK - WIN - VIVENDI
5 - THE SIMS: MAKIN' MAGIC EXPANSION PACK - WIN - ELECTRONIC ARTS
6 - THE SIMS: UNLEASHED EXPANSION PACK - WIN - ELECTRONIC ARTS
7 - SIM CITY 4 - WIN - ELECTRONIC ARTS
8 - CALL OF DUTY - WIN - ACTIVISION
9 - MS AGE OF MYTHOLOGY - WIN - MICROSOFT
10 - BATTLEFIELD 1942 - WIN - ELECTRONIC ARTS

2003 seems to have been a pretty violent year!

-Wes
_________________

[SuperWes]

But how can we ignore sports and racing games?! They're a majority of the games that are sold! Let's ignore action and RPG games. Now there's not a single violent game in existance.

-Wes
_________________

[dessgeega]

if we count sports games, we need to count them as combat games.
_________________

[Shapermc]

Right, I had already said that most sports games were combat related anyways. Also Mario Kart: DD is the most combat oriented racing game I can think of off hand.

The large amount of sims games on those lists really scares me.





Also everyone knows PC games don't count. HA!

[SuperWes]

[dessgeega]

[SuperWes]

Doesn't anything where opposition exists necessitate combat to some extent?

-Wes
_________________

[Shapermc]

[SuperWes]

[dhex]

perhaps there's a conflation between combat and conflict/competition that need not be?

[player 2]

Videogames all have literary elements therefore at this immature stage they all need combat. If you think Phoenix Wright is not combat, you have never seen a high school policy debate tournament. This discussion is so simple it hurts my head.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dhex]

it's the difference between bleeding on the outside and bleeding on the inside.

those who have bled on the outside know the difference.

p.s. grasshopper!
_________________

[Shapermc]

[dessgeega]

the villian in riven weilds a a poison dart rifle.

and there's a large amount of torture devices and weaponry hidden away in the original myst. however, these are not combat games because at no point do you (the player) actually engage anyone in combat (which is distinguished from violence).
_________________

[player 2]

If you take the pedestrian definition of combat, then, yeah, not all games need combat. The player character does not need a sword to deal damage. Guns and ammunition do not have to be found. Heads do not have to be roundhoused. But, come on folks, we're talking about videogames. No matter what there is going to be some sort of struggle. There is going to be some sort of challenge to the player. Even in a game like Electroplankton, there's a conflict to be resolved between the state of the game and the player's will. It'd be Schaupenhauerian if it weren't Nietzschian.

That's actually kind of an important difference.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[Lackey]

See, now it's just going to be a semantic argument : (

Was someone saying that games will exist without any kind of struggle? Wouldn't that preclude interaction?
_________________
| Little bird fighting against a bat sect game |

[player 2]

No one defined combat in any significant way.
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dhex]

combat is violent.

competition is non-violent.

the aim of both is for the will of one to supercede the will of "the other." but there's plenty of ways to talk about/demonstrate competition (or conflict, if you like). katamari comes to mind.

at least, that's the definition i'm rolling with.
_________________

[player 2]

[Ketch]

Actually, what I was getting at is that even if we take the typical Zelda type setting and have a big bad enemy, we don't need to have fighting with sticks / guns / bombs / arrows as the ****main**** type of interaction.

I think we can now combine repetitive actions with non-repetitive contexts, ie. interesting subquests. Ie. Using the same action (carry) in different contexts ie. next to bricks would allow you to help build the tower that the wizard needs to study in.

The nearest I can think of as a way to explain what I am getting at is We Heart Katamari, and Warioware.

Ie. We can give the player several basic abilties but that can be combined in interesting ways, and then give them lots of quests that change the parameters of the challenge. Ie. In one section you are rolling boulders up a hill to help block off the mountain pass that is being invaded, in the next you have to stack blocks Tetris style to make a tower, in the next you need to prevent the rolling boulders from stopping the beavers make a dam. Each of these games would tie in with the "story".

Ie. Each section has you do similar things but with enough twists to them to make each challenge fresh. (Thus avoiding the need for hit big enemies with sticks). Thus when you complete the game you see each action that you have done and look back at how it affected the bigger picture. Each mission would have a reason for its existance.

[player 2]

Obviously. Harvest Moon, Lost in Blue, Guitar Hero, etc. all do it. But what's the point in a making a game specifically eliminating fighting sequences?
_________________
Wii #: 8749 9109 9732 3653

"It is a peaceful way of understanding life, to play"
_Marcel Duchamp

[dhex]

[Shapermc]