Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411283 Posts in 69325 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 29, 2024, 03:49:48 AM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsPlayerGamesthe tedium of violence as progression
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
Print
Author Topic: the tedium of violence as progression  (Read 15101 times)
The Monster King
Level 10
*****


FRKUC im ALWAYS ANGRY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnerd


View Profile
« Reply #200 on: May 10, 2015, 01:17:47 PM »

I think it's hard to make gameplay mechanics within which you directly interact with someone/something else, and that there is an actual 'contest' between the two where there is a gradual level of skill difference, because you only primarily need two moving pieces: the player and their opponent, which may be another player.

With a puzzle you don't "get good" at it - you solve it or you don't.
I mean, there's probably a way to make some variable difficulty out of puzzles, I guess a time limit? And I can certainly see some situations where you become "better" at it like match 3 games. I can imagine some people being better at match 3 games than I am. I certainly hope so anyway I suck at match 3

Anyway the point is it's really easy to design combat in a game, and to add little differences to it all, and to keep it fresh by actually making it hard. You'll do a little better next time you fight this enemy, whether you won or lost last time - but a puzzle? Once you know the solution, you know it. I mean sure you could have like procedurally generated puzzles or whatever, but well that is HARD to design!
you could have some kinda sports game but like i said that requires more parts than just two players, it requires creating original rules, some mechanic that doesn't make it "solvable".
But it's a lot harder to create something with replay value that doesn't involve competitiveness, which is very easy to make with violence. because whether for real (more 'skill' based games) or artificially (RPGs with stats), people love feeling like they 'progressed', like they got better.

If you're not competitive that's fine and I would understand you wouldn't like those parts very much. There's a lot of room for actually good non violent games to be made, but unless an extreme amount of work is done with them I don't think they'll hold as much replay value because there's only so much that can be made to keep conversations and puzzles fresh
Logged
SousaVilla
Level 1
*



View Profile
« Reply #201 on: May 10, 2015, 01:41:54 PM »

I think it's hard to make gameplay mechanics within which you directly interact with someone/something else, and that there is an actual 'contest' between the two where there is a gradual level of skill difference, because you only primarily need two moving pieces: the player and their opponent, which may be another player.

With a puzzle you don't "get good" at it - you solve it or you don't.
I mean, there's probably a way to make some variable difficulty out of puzzles, I guess a time limit? And I can certainly see some situations where you become "better" at it like match 3 games. I can imagine some people being better at match 3 games than I am. I certainly hope so anyway I suck at match 3

Anyway the point is it's really easy to design combat in a game, and to add little differences to it all, and to keep it fresh by actually making it hard. You'll do a little better next time you fight this enemy, whether you won or lost last time - but a puzzle? Once you know the solution, you know it. I mean sure you could have like procedurally generated puzzles or whatever, but well that is HARD to design!
you could have some kinda sports game but like i said that requires more parts than just two players, it requires creating original rules, some mechanic that doesn't make it "solvable".
But it's a lot harder to create something with replay value that doesn't involve competitiveness, which is very easy to make with violence. because whether for real (more 'skill' based games) or artificially (RPGs with stats), people love feeling like they 'progressed', like they got better.

If you're not competitive that's fine and I would understand you wouldn't like those parts very much. There's a lot of room for actually good non violent games to be made, but unless an extreme amount of work is done with them I don't think they'll hold as much replay value because there's only so much that can be made to keep conversations and puzzles fresh

There's no link between non-violent gameplay and puzzles or lack of competition. You have hardcore plattaformers like VVVVVV, racing games, city builders, management games and many others that have been mentioned in this thread that don't do that.

Some mechanics could also be adopted to a non violent setting, like rpg combat systems. Boardgames and tabletop rpgs have a bunch of games with similar rules but different themes, some violent and others not. 
Logged
The Monster King
Level 10
*****


FRKUC im ALWAYS ANGRY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnerd


View Profile
« Reply #202 on: May 10, 2015, 01:45:20 PM »

well ok but besides maybe VVVVVV and racing games (and ive mentionned sports but i guess on tigsource you don't get to not mention everything in details) you need a lot more moving parts for them to be functional at all, let alone fun, which was my point, hi

i think you're right about RPG combat systems adapted to non-violent settings. but what does it say of the non-violent ideal if they're just taking a page from the violence? the answer is, no one gives a shit just make a video game
Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #203 on: May 10, 2015, 01:45:45 PM »

Casual game have been doing it for years (diner dash, farmville, etc ...)

progression and growth are powerful motivator too, especially if you put mild optimization challenge on top

Competition isn't the only design
Logged

gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #204 on: May 10, 2015, 01:46:47 PM »

Also rpg system isn't inherently violent just because it was in a violent game, it's an abstract progression mechanics
Logged

s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #205 on: May 10, 2015, 02:07:53 PM »

im not a competitive person but i like fighting in gams
Logged
Sik
Level 10
*****


View Profile WWW
« Reply #206 on: May 10, 2015, 02:27:20 PM »

While the gameplay isn't violent , the setting is still violent here... In disasters game usually you have to follow a forced moral path.

Eh, not really, in The Firemen (the game I linked the video) it's literally "turn off the fire and get everybody out of there". The closest to a moral choice the characters get (not even the player) is figuring out which parts of the buildings are OK to smash to keep going =/
Logged
valrus
Level 3
***


View Profile
« Reply #207 on: May 10, 2015, 05:30:53 PM »

Reminds me of

, which mechanic-wise is literally the usual top-down action game, but instead of being some rambo guy shooting other soldiers with bullets, you're a fireman "shooting" fire with water. (OK, there are a few robots, but they went haywire because of damaged circuits rather than having been made with the intention to kill you) Also it wasn't some evil guy who started the fire or something like that, just somebody being careless put together with negligence when designing the building.

Oh, right!  Firefighting games totally slipped my mind.

Creeper World is sort of the fluid equivalent of a firefighting game.  (Whether it's violent or not I suppose depends on whether that fluid is conceptualized as a Being.)  Firefighting games, Creeper World, and Starseed Pilgrim (and on the boardgame side, Pandemic and some other Matt Leacock games) all share a common mechanic, in which your primary opponent is a contagion that will turn safe spaces to unsafe ones unless hindered.

Logged
RJAG
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #208 on: May 10, 2015, 05:50:21 PM »

anyway what does that and you not liking dwarf fortress have to do with violence in games?

I never said I didn't like dwarf fortress, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you even read what you're responding to or just skim it? Your conclusion doesn't even seem to reflect what was said. I never even implied I didn't like Dwarf Fortress. Quite the opposite- I implied we need more games like it.

Try re-reading the post. If you skimmed it rather than read it the first time, then try reading it slower.

It takes more than a passing glance to understand this post. I don't spend the time to explain in depth (typing all of that) only for people to ask me to reiterate what I already spent a lot of time discussing. If you don't understand, then just try again. It's pretty simple stuff.

If it's too long for you to read, then you don't deserve to participate (or at least shouldn't expect a simplified/shortened reply).

edit: removed part to add in next post. reiterated the points anyway and allowed the disrespect.

edit2: Links for evidence to suggest Dark Souls 2 was slightly more successful than Dark Souls 1- but 2 is generally viewed by many gamers as less difficult / less 'hardcore' than 1.

http://venturebeat.com/community/2014/04/28/why-dark-souls-is-a-better-game-than-dark-souls-2/

Wikipedia, Dark Souls - In April 2013, From Software announced Dark Souls had sold 2.37 million copies.

Wikipedia, Dark Souls 2 - As of April 2015, the game has sold over 2.5 million copies worldwide.


I don't know much about Dark Souls. That wasn't my point. I just used it as an example of a company TRYING to appeal to a wider audience, using the theory that by simplifying the game (less difficult, more casual friendly) they will appeal to a wider audience. One can only speculate whether or not this was a successful approach, as one can't know WHY 2 only sold 130,000 more units. IMO, 130k is a lot of extra units sold. That's millions more in revenue. I don't know if that is good by AAA standards though. The lack of more people may be due to going from Harder TO Easier, as opposed to starting Easier and going Harder. (Increase in difficulty / niche as game sequels). My own anecdotal evidence suggests that players can be pulled in by Dark Souls 2, enjoy it, and then enjoy Dark Souls 1 more because they were introduced to an "easier" version. Either way, the Dark Souls example was the least important one of the two I used (Roguelike example being a much better example that I know a bit more about.) The Dwarf Fortress example was showing a different point/idea.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 06:33:42 PM by RJAG » Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #209 on: May 10, 2015, 05:57:35 PM »

how about a game where you walk down an alley and high five people while avoiding furniture? (full house, from tiger)
Logged

RJAG
Level 0
***


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: May 10, 2015, 06:08:02 PM »

anyway what does that and you not liking dwarf fortress have to do with violence in games?

...

Try re-reading the post. If you skimmed it rather than read it the first time, then try reading it slower.

...

If it's too long for you to read, then you don't deserve to participate (or at least shouldn't expect a simplified/shortened reply).


I don't mean to be crass, but it is annoying when people read one thing and then conclude another- indicating they didn't even try to comprehend in the first place. I don't want to participate in conversation if the other person doesn't even respect me enough to try to understand what is being stated. I mean...come on man. There is absolutely nothing in there to imply I dislike Dwarf Fortress. Why would you even conclude something so far off? It is not merely my personal opinion that Dwarf Fortress has a bad user interface and absolutely no usability. You'd have to be clinically insane to think otherwise, even if you're a big fan of the game like I am.

The entire point of that paragraph was about how innovators neglecting usability results in less individualistic game developers rejecting innovation in exchange for safer game design. There is already a natural tendency to play it safe and avoid risk in gamedev business. Seeing the lack of financial success of innovative titles (especially such popular ones) is not good for the industry. That means more "safe" games and fewer "Dwarf Fortresses". (Implying we want more Dwarf Fortress games is the opposite of implying I dislike it.) More fear of innovation. More skepticism of innovation v. profit. Less innovation in general. A stifled game industry (a.k.a. what we already have). All wrapping back to violence in video game. Violence is safe. Innovative non-violence game design is risky. Seeing non-violence game design "fail" (or fail to profit enough; fail to bring a wider audience) increases the (perceived) risk of non-violence game design in other indies and bigger companies. It is not a far out idea that people will blame innovation, not the lack of usability, as the reason for failure (lack of a certain level of financial success). At the end of the day, it is not uncommon for someone to think ill of Dwarf Fortress, rather than thinking they should risk by making a game like it (or a game innovative/complex/deep like it).

To simplify it that even a lazy reader could understand: That imaginary dislike of dwarf fortress means fewer non-violent video games.

The Dark Souls example and especially the Roguelike example means it is possible to bridge the gap between niche gamers and casual (core; common) gamers. Bring in more financial success to a niche, encouraging innovation, encouraging risk.

I shouldn't have to reiterate this stuff. It was all in the original post if you'd take the time to read it.

edit: To note, this is not the major reason we don't see innovation. Innovation, IMO, being strongly focused on non-violent alternatives since nearly all violent designs have been thoroughly exhausted. It is just one factor of many. The biggest one is most likely the fact innovative game design is HARD. Making non-violence fun is HARD WORK. It is much easier to rely on a safe, always-fun, easy to understand blast of violent gameplay. I just wanted to make this clear, as I only reiterated this less significant point because I was asked to.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2015, 06:34:31 PM by RJAG » Logged
s0
o
Level 10
*****


eurovision winner 2014


View Profile
« Reply #211 on: May 10, 2015, 06:54:46 PM »

ok first off, sorry my post was rude. i shouldnt even have said anything.

anyway, i think you read me wrong. i didnt mean you literally dislike dwarf fortress. the point was that your post is a tangent...

...which was actually wrong because i misread the part where you talked about exploration games. nvm.

Quote
The Dark Souls example and especially the Roguelike example means it is possible to bridge the gap between niche gamers and casual (core; common) gamers.

oooh ok so were talking specifically about the "core" games sphere. i was thrown off by the word casual because when i read that in connection with games i think farmville, candy crush, bejeweled, snood, peggle, temple run etc, all of which are nonviolent games. theres nothing risky or difficult about making a nonviolent game that appeals to so-called "casual gamers", it's actually probably harder to sell a *violent* game to them. but when you say "casuals" you mean like CoD players, right?

Quote
To note, this is not the major reason we don't see innovation. Innovation, IMO, being strongly focused on non-violent alternatives since nearly all violent designs have been thoroughly exhausted. Making non-violence fun is HARD WORK.

sorry but i just dont think this is true. there are droves of popular mainstream nonviolent games and lots of "safe" nonviolent designs. there are adventure games, puzzle games, (time) management games, sports games, lots of abstract card & board games, gambling, there's minecraft and its various clones where combat exists but is unimportant etc. etc. people itt have actually posted lists.

making nonviolence fun for certain "core" gamers who play violent games is hard. making nonviolence in games fun for pretty much everyone else isn't.
Logged
The Monster King
Level 10
*****


FRKUC im ALWAYS ANGRY AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnerd


View Profile
« Reply #212 on: May 10, 2015, 07:50:45 PM »

you guys didnt really read what i said at all huh
ok have fun!!!
Logged
gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #213 on: May 10, 2015, 08:09:29 PM »

yes we read it
Logged

Armageddon
Level 6
*



View Profile
« Reply #214 on: May 10, 2015, 09:30:42 PM »

Dunno if it was posted yet but I really like this video.





I really didn't understand why I was so disappointed in L.A. Noire until I saw this. It's so crazy to shoot 100+ mob dudes on the Intolerance set after spending days investigating a murder.
Logged

b∀ kkusa
Global Moderator
Level 10
******



View Profile
« Reply #215 on: May 10, 2015, 09:32:57 PM »

no one gives a shit just make a video game

Best conclusion
Logged
oahda
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #216 on: May 10, 2015, 11:23:33 PM »

how about a game where you walk down an alley and high five people while avoiding furniture? (full house, from tiger)
That actually does give one the idea of "near encounters" that are not battles but something else, but use similar mechanics. Could bring a lot of humour into that. Like dance-offs in the street or something.
Logged

valrus
Level 3
***


View Profile
« Reply #217 on: May 10, 2015, 11:52:08 PM »

Dance Battle: Man vs Dog: The Game


Logged
jamesprimate
Level 10
*****


wave emoji


View Profile WWW
« Reply #218 on: May 11, 2015, 12:02:58 AM »

Dunno if it was posted yet but I really like this video.





I really didn't understand why I was so disappointed in L.A. Noire until I saw this. It's so crazy to shoot 100+ mob dudes on the Intolerance set after spending days investigating a murder.

great vid, thanks for posting it! pretty much exactly sums up my feelings on the rockstar catalog
Logged

gimymblert
Level 10
*****


The archivest master, leader of all documents


View Profile
« Reply #219 on: May 11, 2015, 05:40:41 AM »

Dunno if it was posted yet but I really like this video.





I really didn't understand why I was so disappointed in L.A. Noire until I saw this. It's so crazy to shoot 100+ mob dudes on the Intolerance set after spending days investigating a murder.

great vid, thanks for posting it! pretty much exactly sums up my feelings on the rockstar catalog

https://emshort.wordpress.com/?s=modeling+conversation+flow

https://emshort.wordpress.com/category/conversation-modeling/

People are ignoring the advancement made into conversation
Logged

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic