Tasteful Understated Nerdrage/MrBtongue Thread

[CMcC]

CMcC Care to address what he says starting from 7:40?

If I may paraphrase my Twitter account, we'll certainly try to keep this concern in mind. I doubt you'll hear "What does one life matter?" repeated more than 50-80 times throughout the game.

Though I can't speak for the other writers.


ETA: Though I suppose if you want a REAL answer, then I guess I'd hope that people would give us a little credit for not being entirely stupid. We've got a tagline for a rapid delivery of what our game's about, but we're not going to belabor that line throughout the game.

 

[hiver]

Why violence?

Shadenuat

Machocruz

My thoughts on the most recent video and the thing that MrBtongue did not touch on at all:

Videogame violence is an aesthetic representation of mechanics. Games are sets of rules which facilitate failure and win states. Shooters are effectively pattern-matching and reflex games wherein the goal is to place a cursor over a target in an allotted time. Ammo management, health, etc. are supplementary mechanics that make the shooting system more interesting. Now tell me, how many themes map logically to this set of mechanics?

It's also important to understand the realities of game development. Making a shooter that plays to modern standards takes dozens if not hundreds of people months or even years. It costs lots of money. And in the end, what is the shooting? A set of graphics and mechanics which can be recycled again and again in order to provide entertainment. That is, the initial investment cost of shooting enemies in a satisfying way is high, but once it's done you basically have a game ready to go.

MrBtongue's comparison of dialogue to shooting is not fair because dialogue systems rely far more on unique content, including writing, scripting and voice acting, which for the most part cannot be reused. That does not mean we can't take major steps to implement non-combat elements in ways that are just as satisfying and reusable as the mechanics in shooters (mini-games are one way developers try to do this), but it does mean that you may have to make sacrifices in other parts of the gameplay to do it.

Part of the problem, of course, is that the only mechanics and systems that developers are exploring are ones that are thematically consistent with shooting. So, we have iron sights as a new mechanic because we are fixated on ways to make shooting more accessible. But I think a lot of the problem also boils down to the fact that for this gameplay style that has worked so well for the industry, violence really is one of the few ways to visually describe it.

In other words, the limiting factor, in my opinion, is not solely violence (though that is a factor in actually marketing a game and getting investors/publishers on board), but rather in the relatively narrow and limiting set of mechanics and systems which are considered appropriate for mass market use. Sadly, the mass market is always there to confirm this is the case, because like it or not, many people do want pretty mindless, fluffy entertainment. Most Western triple-A games are so expensive that you also put your return on investment at significantly increased risk. Ultimately you aren't making a game because it's your dream game: you're making it to make money for someone else, and to keep your ass employed.

This is true. Yet all this has an underlying reason that informs all of it.


The answer is - Because it is easy.

Especially in games, this easiness of violence is multiplied by manifolds.
Since you dont kill real people. Or... youre not even "killing" - because its so unreal, and you can just think of it as just "winning". Or just... "defeating the enemy" - without any big reason to go into any details of it.
But if you want to - it is very Easy. "I killed that dude haha!" "Head shooot!"
No problem. He isnt real.
You can safely enjoy it.
Its Easy.


And the games make it even Easier, because all enemies are so obviously and intentionally evil.
From their backgrounds, motives to the very way they look.
Games lavishly supply players with numerous excuses of all kinds. Informational and visual. If they ever implement smells into the games you can be sure the enemies will smell badly.

Those that dont do this are very rare, almost non-existant.
If nothing else - youre "killing" nameless, faceless irrelevant fodder, even in those games that try to present at least a few characters as something more - in order to get to them in the first place.

It is not only Easy - but it is Easy in numerous ways and on numerous levels - and its the Easiest way to cause the feeling of ego satisfaction in the player - in the fastest way possible.
Which will make them return for more.
This approach then makes it Easier than any other.

All the while - without any reason to feel guilty about any of it - which makes all of it Easy.


We loved violence in all its forms because of these same reasons throughout our history.
This is the answer why did Germans as people succumb to something so obviously "evil" as nazism and everything it caused.

This is the answer why there is racism of any kind.

Not just simplistically because it is Easy - but because it is Easier then the other options.
It is Easier to kill someone then to convince him into accepting your views.

It is Easier to try and wipe out Jewish people then to actually solve problems of economy, socio-political system and everyday reality.
It is Easier to just blame some specific group for all of it.
Today, it is Easier for Jevish politicians to act aggressively and with violence against Palestinians then to find a better solution. It is Easier for Hezbollah to plant bombs around Israel and kill civilians then to fight Jevish army.
It is Easier for Jevish army to send aerial strikes or artillery strikes that kill many civilians then to try not to.

We are hardwired to feel pleasure when we win over someone. When we are stronger.
Defeat hurts. Winning feels good. Dopamine releases.
Even in just written arguments like the kind we have here, the one who is perceived as stronger in any sense is largely accepted as a winner, and brofisted regardless of the specifics.
We never praise the looser, right?

And of course, there is the US and their schtick about teh "Winners".
People still believe that shit in the US even if its obviously not true and most know it - because it is Easy.
or.... Easier.



And so it goes in games. What is Easier?
To make a game only about combat or to design and successfully implement other modes of gameplay?
And even if you do... which games will have more audience? More sales?
And around which games will people cluster and buy even more of? Around "winners" or those that are... not winners?
Why? Because it is Easy and Easier.


-edit

what i say encompasses both what TuN and Errant Signal say
their takes are merely a part of the concept entirety - focused above.

i watched errant signal video after i wrote this too,
but it was nice to see someone recognized the aspect of Ease, even just partially.

 

[DeepOcean]

Agree with hiver, why think until your head explode trying to make new gameplay that: a) can attract criticism because it is new gameplay and the developers don't have experience so it could be broken gameplay, b) cause confusion and can take awhile until people try and decide if they like, c) even if the gameplay is revolutionary it wouldn't sell more than a popamole shooter and expose the publisher to alot of risks. Even on the kickstarter , people generally pledge for what they know.

 

[hiver]

Its not only about that. The more different modes of gameplay you make - the more overall complexity rises.
While games that focus on one thing are just physically simpler.
Its in the basics of the nature laws.
We are not thinking like that because we are "evil".
Its just how things work on a fundamental level.

Its also the issue of immediate rewards, short term goals vs long term benefits (and thus consequences you can get now or "maybe" later).

BUT - it has huge negative consequences.
As history can and does teach us, very heavily. On a greater scale... forcing one single design in repetition is doom.
All species who couldnt evolve fast enough are proof of that on the very basic level.
As well as all of the technology that got overrun with newer better models and ideas over time.
Easy is a trap.

But to understand that you have to be aware and understand it.


Gaming is a very good example of these long term negative consequences.
Rise of the PR reliant marketed publisher model and all. Idiotic games by the thousands.

Yet that - creates a re-action. It is a constant pressure that stifles advancement, innovation, evolution.
It creates an supersaturation of one and the same crappy, cheap, shallow concept. Thus it creates shit, negative consequences over long term, in exorbitant amounts.

Which creates the need for something else. An untapped market.
Then you get Kickstarter.

Of course, all the time you have some individual companies and people seeing this. Being aware.
So you can find some examples of different attempts and thinking.

Such as Valve, Portal games, adventure games, Fallout games, Planescape Torment... and probably many other that got created over time, one by one.
despite and often working against the "system" of Easy.

 

[Shadenuat]

And the games make it even Easier, because all enemies are so obviously and intentionally evil.
From their backgrounds, motives to the very way they look.
Games lavishly supply players with numerous excuses of all kinds.

Yeah, it's piss easy. I call characters like that "scapegoats", ones which resolve the gameplay or conflict in a story by their death. They are usually painted evil, so it is supposed that if you kill them, you solve all the problems in the world of that game. I hate that with passion, but I understand why it is happening. Because if you set yourself a goal to give every character at least a name and a small backstory, the player may, oh god, actually find character likeable, and you are now one leg in a world of insanity and your story will be completely different from that point (not to mention, you can't just base the game around clicking and loot anymore).

 

[Machocruz]

I said as much. It isn't a mystery at all. At every stop down the line you have people who either can't, won't, don't want to, or don't care. Too much effort, not enough interest, not enough skill, not enough desire. It's easy to feed and easy to digest one object hitting another object, and the latter object goes away. Over and over and over. Massacre. Why violence to begin with? Because it's fun. No mystery there either, unless you have illusions about mankind. Even when it's not easy, it's fun. And it feels like doing something vital, instead of two paddles slapping a ball back and forth. Risk, danger, severity, finality...even if it's a game that can be beat blindfolded, with respawns, and the mannequins on screen bleed cotton candy.

 

[hiver]

Yes. but.
Violence is .... - because it is easy.

At least that's what our short term brain sections tell us. Instant gratification flips that switch - in the easiest way.

 

[Shadenuat]

Well hiver, the brain sections are interesting in a sense that they are most receptive to new stuff. First love, first adrenaline, first fear. After a while, like any drug, (cheap) violence loses it's power on you, unless shit becomes even more and more violent, like in recent Tomb Raider which upped it's shocking value with gore and female character because it had to "hit". But as you grow up, you start searching for new, strong and fresh experiences, and because that regular shit does't work anymore, or at least not like it used to, you want something more complex than whacking moles.

 

[hiver]

Yeah, thats another level, another "feature" that works together with the basic law of the universe. The "Easy". To which we gravitate naturally - to a point.

The "easy" and the "satisfaction" enhance one another. Of course.

I just wanted to offer a very basic explanation on "why violence" at all, not just in the gaming but in everything.
And gaming is a part of "everything".

 

[BobtheTree]

I agree, the question is important, it drives a lot of the game, but it's not what makes the whole game compelling as there is a lot of ancillary world and character stuff going on I find as equally compelling as the main story thread.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I miss stuff from Crusader: No Regret.

Also, one thing that I wish they'd introduce would be screams of pain. Enemies falling to the ground and screaming. Begging for mercy, begging for help, calling their mothers.

 

[hiver]

Awor... little spoiled protected kid, going down the Easy route. To gain some Easy satisfaction.

 

[Utgard-Loki]

i've always wondered what would happen if killing in video games was depicted in a more realistic light. instead of people just falling over and basically stop existing once enough "damage" was done, they'd fall to the ground and start sobbing and screaming for their mother as awor says. i also wonder if you could use that to discourage the player using lethal force, in say, a thief-like.

naw, most would get off on it unless it was like 10 year old children.

and even then.

 

[DeepOcean]

i've always wondered what would happen if killing in video games was depicted in a more realistic light. instead of people just falling over and basically stop existing once enough "damage" was done, they'd fall to the ground and start sobbing and screaming for their mother as awor says. i also wonder if you could use that to discourage the player using lethal force, in say, a thief-like.

naw, most would get off on it unless it was like 10 year old children.

and even then.

Never gonna happen, most gamers and gaming journalists like only to pretend that they want games to discuss serious issues in video games, so they can feel good about themselves and gaming journos can write inane, repetitive and useless articles about the objetification of women and other pseudo intelectual stuff, as soon as they start experiencing anything truly unconfortable they will just turn away with excuses like this games promotes violence, racism, anti-patriotism or any excuse that is in fashion, they don't want to think, they want to feel that they are thinking. You can see this very behavior with the Spec Ops: the line crazy, where every pseudo-intelectual hipster blogger/youtube personality/gaming journo praised a mediocre Gears of War clone as a revolutionary game that discussed the glorification of violence of war on AAA shooters because you could see some bodies on cutscenes and they made a convoluted story that was a rip off of Apocalypse Now and added nothing new.

 

[TheCatsofSanktPetersburg]

Wait, wait, wait...

So you didn't like it?

 

[Infinitron]

I miss stuff from Crusader: No Regret.

Also, one thing that I wish they'd introduce would be screams of pain. Enemies falling to the ground and screaming. Begging for mercy, begging for help, calling their mothers.

 

[BobtheTree]

i've always wondered what would happen if killing in video games was depicted in a more realistic light. instead of people just falling over and basically stop existing once enough "damage" was done, they'd fall to the ground and start sobbing and screaming for their mother as awor says. i also wonder if you could use that to discourage the player using lethal force, in say, a thief-like.

naw, most would get off on it unless it was like 10 year old children.

and even then.

Not quite what you're talking about, but in the first two Gothic games, you just knock people out instead of killing them.

 

[Gurkog]

That is why I liked TFC way more than the CS shit that sparked the dude-bro shooter craze. Classes had different tactics for aiding a team that did not revolve solely around killing enemies as fast as possible. Pyros blinding the enemy and identifying spies by them catching on fire, engineers repairing armor and providing ammo dispensers, medics healing wounds/poison and uncovering spies by poisoning them, scouts laying snare traps and concussion grenading entrenched positions, demos breaching/sealing fortifications, spies creating chaos and confusion, etc... The only class I disliked was the sniper, because it served no real role other than pointless headshoting like the dude-bros. Then you factor in rocket/grenade jumping that trades a bit of damage for greater mobility around obstacles, or using the explosives to knock the enemies off bridges and stuff.

Guess I am saying that mindless violence like that in CS is lazy game design while tactical combat like TFC take much more player investment. That is why TFC servers became ghost towns when CS launched... and the FPS genre went down the path of decline and least resistance.

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

Quiet, here comes Todd Howard

Can't breathe

 

[Corporate_Jew_Master]

He does make good, valid points but after watching his 3rd vid I'm starting to doubt the whole "I'm not saying it was a bad game but it's not a good game of the series etc etc". Dude should just come clean with his hate of the popamole trash that is Diablo 3 and the absolute bore train of Oblivion.

 

[BobtheTree]

Basically why popamole is inferior to CRPGs when it comes to choice.

 

[tuluse]

I'm not sure I like the dichotomy he presents. If instead of loyalty, there was a mission to increase his combat awareness or something like that, it would be fine because it would be more of a simulation?

 

[Gozma]

I never heard "choice and consequence" as a thing before Vault Dweller saying it on the Codex. I've seen "blobber" elsewhere, too... Codex Critical Memes :tm:

 

[Delterius]

I'm not sure I like the dichotomy he presents. If instead of loyalty, there was a mission to increase his combat awareness or something like that, it would be fine because it would be more of a simulation?

I believe the real dichotomy here is between a linear storytelling and the more traditional exercises in world building. Gameworlds by excellence provide C&C through simple logic, often through emergence; Linear, even branching, Stories present C&C only necessarily within the chronological order that the writers projected, but not necessarily logically.

 

[Infinitron]

Basically why popamole is inferior to CRPGs when it comes to choice.

Nice video, although I too think that "simulation vs replayability" is a false dichotomy. There's deep C&C and shallow C&C. The former is based on multiple layers of choices, variables, stats and skills, etc that are accrued throughout the game and have wide-ranging effects, while the latter is typically based on simplistic plot-branching CYOA dialogues with little context. "Simulation" and "replayability" are just byproducts of that.

And lol people are talking about RPGCodex in the comments.