Deathmatch generation

#1 Want to hear ideas that work without guns? How about a FPA? That's First Person Adventure. No guns! Okay, so you might have some sharp object flying at you from traps or obsticals, and maybe the occasional high-tech fictional lazers being shot at you from aliens, but it's mostly a giant adventure that's designed with multi-player in mind.
Want to hear about it?
I'll be posting it on my website eventualy, and they will all be copyrighted so I'm not worried.
Send me an e-mail and I'll send one back with the URL when it's there.

dedly_cld@yahoo.com

Or check out my site anytime:
http://www.angelfire.com/nc/dedlycld/cldstudios.html

Later!

#2 Hehehe.
What's next? A RWG? Role Watching Game?
I'm working with someone making the all out LIFE simulator, looks like this is the new game generation coming. :)
I thought up of the life simulator first! No fair...
Oh well, wait until they see my !@#$% Simulator. :))

#3 >>- but for me one is clear - seems that there will be one huge explosion of action titles, after which the gamers will start looking for something else. Maybe even radically different.

I'm not talking about next year, maybe even next two-three years, but the time will come, comrades<<


I think people probably said the same thing about film when they first started churning out gangster and cowboy flicks - but there will always be another 'The Mummy Returns' or 'Die Hard'.


>>I'm working with someone making the all out LIFE simulator, looks like this is the new game generation coming. :)
I thought up of the life simulator first! No fair...
Oh well, wait until they see my !@#$% Simulator. :))<<

A few years ago (around directx3 if I remember right)a friend of mine who was doing statistical learning theory had an idea for something like a life simulator (though I dont think we ever called it that) - he had some really good ideas - and I was doing some work on a semi random graphics builder - you fed in certain base shapes with certain tags - then the AI engine could buld (near) never ending objects - characters - buildings etc.

We didnt get that far into it as he graduated and is now off developing algorithms to crack gene codes, shame - the games industry lost a good'en in him :(

But yeah - I think something that evolves beyond our current idea of games is called for - and at the end of the day life is the ultimate game (thats really cheezy isnt it?!)

Although saying that - I am partial to a bit of mindless violence - but then lifes full of that anyway.

#4 "Every problem for him can be solved with railgun or sword - and not only in FPS but also RPG's and even adventures."

Indeed, in real life this is also the case (shoot someone and they'll leave you alone) - however, most games simply have little or no adverse consequences for destructive or harmful behaviour. A.I. also isn't as good as it needs to be - in every game, cops will only shoot you, and have no ability to actually arrest you. Most action games, though, put you in a role where combat is a necessity - a SWAT officer, a soldier, etc. You can't peacefully reason with an enemy foot soldier during jungle warfare. You can't stop a madman and his private army from destroying the world just by saying "please, sir, don't do it" or "you big meanie, I don't like you anymore".

The basic plots of games are almost always similar in formula to action movies: 1) problem arises (conflict), 2) hero faces it (climax) and 3) goes home (resolution).

Why do so many people endure the marginal acting featured on Baywatch? Boobs. Why do so many people enjoy watching the Die Hard series? Guns and explosions. By appealing to our baser instincts, we are appealing to a much larger demographic. Why is that a good thing? Money.

Another interesting thing is that multiplayer action games are becoming a lot like sports - capture the flag, for instance, is very similar in premise to football. Deathmatch is no more pointless than is, say, tennis. It's all in fun; a test of skills.

Games really aren't any more stagnant than movies or novels. You've got the good (Deus Ex, Metal Gear Solid), the bad (Sin, KISS Psycho Circus), and the ugly (Daikatana).

#5 I agree that too much emphasis is placed on combat in games, but getting rid of it is no good. The problem here is that combat is the ONLY solution in most cases. You need to keep all the combat (cos its fun) but leave a choice for the player. Combat whn they feel like it, stealth when they are sick of killing people. An FPS where the play consists of problem solving alone(FPPS?), is no better then a combat based game. A choice needs to be given. With a choice, the fun of combat is there if you wish, but should you tire of it, there are solutions requiring of the brain.

BTW Etienne, Life is most certainly not the ultimate game. If it were then there would be no need for 3D accelerators. People seek to escape life through games, fun for when life isn't.

#6 Life (seen and unseen - material and spiritual)is everything we know - anything else is just random sparks from over productive synapsis.
(lets see how many people loose it over that one:)
















a joke

#7 I like "you big meanie, I don't like you anymore".
And then you start crying and begging.
Why won't it work? I think if you asked nicely and banged on the console a bit...


You might break the game, and be considered insane. =)


>Why do so many people endure the marginal acting featured on Baywatch? Boobs.

Actually I disagree. The boobs don't hurt, but I think it is the action and drama that pulls you away from other shows.

Are you saying we should put pictures of boobs everywhere in our games, and make sure there are lots of guns and violence? Why not the shoot the nude female enemy game? Guns+violence+boobs.


>People seek to escape life through games, fun for when life isn't.

I think he meant that. When life isn't fun, have a virtual life, and that is a universal game everyone could like. Being able to have complete control over everything and anything. That IS the ultimate game, not necessarly based on life or our life, but that level of control is achieving something that could be considered to us (currently) as "Ultimate".

#8 This is complete stupidity. People who try to stem violent behavoir to video games haven't a clue. I have survived a 5 hour frag fest and came out with my soul intact. I do not wish to glib anyone. Perhaps we should blame the crack that the person is on rather than the video game he plays.

#9 I don't know where you got that idea but it wasn't mentioned in this thread. What is being said is that action only games are becoming boring. I don't think they are, I could play ten more deus exes and still want more. Action games are good, they just need to have good storylines too.

#10 For myself, the distinction between reality, and games/TV is clear. From what I have heard, that is the norm. But who knows? Maybe some people have a more blurred line between life and whats on the screen.

The main thing is knowing the rules of your universe. Even in the most realistic game, I know that killing someone, is harmless. But, in real life, I also know that killing someone is a major crime. I can keep the distinction, but I don't know for sure that everybody in the world can. From what I know, there are most definitely people who are affected by what they see on TV, so I suppose those people would also be affected by games in the same manner. I don't think that you can catagorically state whether games affect people or not, undoubtably most people are unaffected, but there are bound to be some who go contrary to the rule.

I have played games for most of my life, and even though I'm not going to go and kill someone for fun, I have undoubtably been affected by it. My mum saw a film I was watching late at night (no, not that kind of film...), an action film, and she was shocked by the violence and blood, but I couldn't have cared less. I didn't really notice just how violent it was, until it was pointed out to me. From playing so many games, I am used to seeing extreme violence on the screen. I am sure this is not a good thing. Violence is violence, be it in life or on a screen, it should still hold a strong value. All in all, I think that there is too much senseless violence in games. I'm not against violence in games, it has it's place, but it should always be meaningful, have a reason. Blowing things away in every game, just because that's how games are, gives the risk of being disjointed from violence, be it on a small scale or otherwise. Just because violence in games doesn't affect everybody adversely, doesn't mean it should be there just because.

I enjoy a combat game as much as the next person, but extreme amounts of violence need not be used. There doesn't need to be huge sprays of blood and limbs. Graphics are always getting better, and the level of detail attainable is always rising, but just because you can depict extremely sick, violent wounds, doesn't mean you should. Keep violence in context, games are supposed to be fun, adding 5X the ammount of blood to a fighting game is unlikely to affect the gameplay, having some indication of injury is, but there is no point in going over the top.

#11 You know, if you really wanted to end this First Person Shooter craze, you figure out a way to make the gamer completely despise the genre.

For example, you make a shooter in a wartime environment where the player is the commanding officer of a platoon (or more) of men (comprised of AI-driven bots). And when those bots are killed in combat, you have to write a letter (actually WRITE the letter, not just click 'send condolences') to the poor, fallen bot's bot-wife. And then when you get shore-leave, you have to explain to the bot-soldier's five year-old bot-child why daddy won't be coming home anymore.

Okay, maybe not. I'm just trying to mock the situation. The FPS craze will wear itself out eventually; as will RTS; as will Myst-style games; et cetera. I'm not particularly worried about any of it, and I've no wish to accelerate the process.

#12 People have been calling the popularity for first person games a 'craze' since quake 2 - dont you get it yet?

#13 I think, there is no need to stop violence in games. I'd prefer - making violence REALLY violent. it is not a craze. Just, when you kill a grandma and she's funny twisting, you dont feel it as a violence. but when you see how awful death looks in reality, you understand the reality of death.

Im tv director and have seen quite much violence in real life..well..in videos. but it was real and not made-up.

i've seen terorist videos for ransom where they shoot in chest hostages to make realtives understand that theyre serious.

that was shocking. but i understood the reality of death then. players may have the choice, but they have to understand the consequences.

#14 bump

#15 First of all, I'd like to point out that violence is needed in almost every game, otherwise we would all be winning it the entire time. Here's a few good examples of how violent games are if you don't get the picture yet...

RPG's - Role playing is based on being a hero, and there's always a villan to thwart. It's called conflict and resolution, and also heroism over injustice!

FPS - The name says it all, it's a Shooter! There's tons of bad guys and the object is to kill or be killed, or, like my FPA above, just to survive without dieing.

Sim Games (sim city for ex.) - There is tons of usualy violent things in this type of game, weither it's people starving, a fire breaking out, or even an earthquake, they are all forms of excessive violence, the only difference is that we usualy don't see the gore that it represents.

Super Mario Bros. - A cartoony violence yes, but it's still violence! How nasty do you think it realy would look for a huge person (high on shrooms you might say) to go around stomping on walking mushrooms and turtles, falling into fiery pits of lava, and fighting with a giant turtle over a princess! And don't forget he plays with fire, a complete arsonist!

Remember, life is violent, and without it we would be without conflict, making life very boring!

#16 Chris, "violence" and "conflict" are somewhat different things. Games without "conflict" (or challenge) are not possible (IMO).

But challenges in Simcity are not based on violence, it is different kind of conflict. And I do not advocate games with no violence at all, I said that there Should Be several ways to solve the problem.
Shotgun is rather limited tool.

#17 Violence is what just about everything boils down to.

A conflict is either resolved thru words.... or violence occurs.

This is our reality.

I feel sorry for those who cannot grip this.

#18 I think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head - Action is action, there is no way around it. Intense action is entertaining, it will never get old. It's a fundamental pillar of enjoyment.

Whether or not blood and gore should be put into the game, I have come to a conclusion that in most games, the blood isn't for realism, it's more for another gratifying particle shower. It's like adding in an extra explosion, simply cosmetic purposes.

If a game every goes for true super realistic disfiguration, etc, I think the game should try to be something other than a straight up shooter, since if you want realistic really death why not have slightly realistic situations too.

A game like Deus Ex is a perfect example for a situation where more realistic gore would be good. Most bloodshed could be avoided if you wanted to (can just use things that aren't really pointy). It also had that emphasis on doing what you thought was right, so realistic deaths would kinda add to it if you ask me. Maybe you'll have more remorse for the poor suckers.

#19 I think we sometimes need pulp fiction like Babewatch or Xena just to give ourselves a break from reality.

--Eric

#20 I don't know when shooting games became a fad? Space Invaders circa late 70's was a shoot em up(just in 2d). Point and shoot games are just very easy to make and do not require a lot of inovation. Heck I have one at home I am building by myself. I would love to make the next Sims blockbuster and really stand out from the crowd but actually building something like that requires an awful lot of work. It is wonderful to have lofty noble goals but at the end of the month the bills are still going to be due.