After seeing some of the reactions to the Hardcore mode in Fallout: New Vegas it started my wondering about some of the compromises that have been made in game design. Some of which have been reused so often that they're becoming clichés and used because they're expected. The issue of eating and sleeping in role playing games is one I expect has been discussed a lot in meeting rooms. However I can't think of a single game I've played where food and bed was not simply a means of restoring health and not required for anything else. There probably is an example of someone who has tried it out there but it's not one I've ever heard about. The fact that the majority of RPGs end up with the same system means the a lot of the reason for the decision has to be because of user expectation. Even in Fallout: New Vegas you need to select a special option for it to be different and that option explicitly states it is not recommended. Personally I'm really enjoying Hardcore mode, to me it adds to the level of immersion and makes the game more enjoyable. It's for the same reason I don't use the 'fast travel' option either. There will be many reasons why people don't like it. Some will say it's too hard, others will say it's tedious micro-management and some will have imagined from the start that it was taking place and you just weren't controlling it. So does the fact that I enjoy the Hardcore mode make me a control freak? (probably a little!) Looking at the statistics on Steam (so that's PC only, not Xbox or PS3) it shows that only 1.5% of players have completed Fallout: New Vegas in Hardcore mode. You do have to consider the game has only been out for two weeks and many (including me) won't have had time to complete it yet, but that is still going to be a very small niche. So does that mean designers shouldn't do it? I hope not!
Despite the rapid advances in graphics and the more and more realistic looking environments we're getting it feels to me that the industry has let the innovations in game play lag behind. Looking at the list of games I currently have installed over half are sequels which are essentially the same as the original but with improved graphics. None of the big names appear to be trying anything new anymore. That is not entirely a bad thing, more of great games is good, but we need something new as well. I think that is probably one of the reasons I enjoy Eve Online which is a massive world where the players have control of almost everything. Now of course even that has it's limits but CCP do seem to be doing a good job of regularly trying new things and adding more options.
I too am guilty of letting technical limitations get in the way of game design. The reason my Bob character has telekinetic power rather than arms and legs is so I didn't have to animate them. It's impossible to avoid really. Of course the most important factor in the end is always going to be fun, but what people find fun is always going to be subjective. If a game becomes to close to real life would it still be fun? Probably not you may as well go and do it for real in that case. Even The Sims reduced life down to eight basic needs but surely there is still some room for some more common sense even within fantastical environments. Even in New Vegas' Hardcore mode there are still plenty of things which are simplified. You may now have to eat and sleep regularly but you don't have to go to the toilet for example and would you want to? It's all about balance and unfortunately also profit. To try something new and have it fail is enough to destroy a company in the current climate.
So what is the answer? I don't know to be honest. I started writing this without a solid conclusion in mind thinking it would form as I wrote it. That didn't happen and I almost decided to not even post it. Personally I think I need to start looking outside the mainstream some more. For the industry as a whole I'm less sure. I feel like it's time for the next big jump to a new level. Motion control is not it and neither is 3D, both of those will have their uses but they're not wide ranging enough. It's going to need someone cleverer than me to figure that out. I'm just one of a small minority of gamers looking for a deeper connection with their games rather than just fighting for positions on multiplayer leaderboards in the latest Call of Duty or Medal of Honour.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You may have been working your thoughts out as you typed, but I found that a most interesting and thoughtful piece. Your thoughts on the things people enjoy or don't enjoy as they play show such an understanding of what others are getting out of the game, even when it's different for you. I can see what you mean about a deeper experience, and missing out the realities of life, like food, or real-time travel, would spoil that, wouldn't they? (All the same, I think you are right about toilets!)
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that that is also a great point when you say that the play experience has not kept up with the developments in graphics. Always dangerous for a commercial enterprise to try something new - it's all about what sells, isn't it, so tempting to stick to tried and tested formulas. Maybe independent small companies will come up with something original, as they do in film, as opposed to the Hollywood blockbuster. But I think you have seen a glimpse of what the future could be, if the play could match the graphics. Is it the depth of immersion that needs to improve, so that elements of the real you go towards making the character you play? Or do the settings need to be more real, possibly with real-life consequences? The mind boggles! What a brilliant post. You really got me thinking there, because here the making of games overlaps with the making of stories, and there, I feel I am on solid ground!