It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Why cant people get behind games that are not so focused on reality?
We live in an age where we can create anything you can imagine and the only games that come out as FPS are war games that someway resemble earth. In My Opinion that's laziness and cheap... its sad everyone's got there collective heads shoved up there.... well you know.
I want a game that breaks the crappy mold of "There Must Be a Human" in the game.
The only thing i can think of that pulled it off, the right way is the Oddworld saga, with a focus on Strangers Wrath. That was well outside the box and a lot of fun. No humans or anything recognizable to be seen.
We can create an alien world and make moons explode yet we always need to have human prognosticators in our games.
Attachments:
Post edited October 27, 2009 by Starkrun
Many sci-fi RTSs would beg to differ. Same with just about every platformer that isn't a Mario or Zelda.
The thing is, when you are trying to evoke an emotional response from someone (a requirement for a great story), that someone needs to be able to relate to the PC. It is generally easier to relate to a human-esque being, and even easier if that being is in a scenario that a person could see themselves in.
And considering the state of the world, war is on everyone's mind.
Hell, it even bleeds over into fantasy. Lately, it is the dark fantasy and fantasy noir stories that are getting the push. People don't really relate as much to Aragorn stabbing a troll, but they do relate to Geralt uncovering corruption or Roderick Cassel defending his Lady (and her prisoner) from a bunch of raiders.
What are you talking about? I've played these Pokemon Mystery Dungeon games for forever. you're a pokemon in that game, and there are no humans, just pokemon.
I think you partly answered your own question, there, Stark.
A lot of the obsession, I figure, comes from the fact that people have always wanted to tell immersive stories about "real-world" events with realistic circumstances and a realistic feel to them, it's just that the technology was never there to realize those visions before. So because we didn't have the technology, game designers had to rely on people's imaginations and had to branch out into other things, making games and telling stories about fantasy worlds and scenarios.
But then the technology caught up, and it was possible to make something that looked photo-realistic and if you wanted to put a player in World War II era France or feudal Japan, or whatever, you could do it. And so the industry went that way. The technology allowed it, so people wanted to take advantage of that tech and see what the hyper-realism could do for them.
And we're still living in that mold. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Humanity's got a rich history, and I think there's still plenty of stuff to be mined, there, but at the same time, sure, we can use the tech for stuff that -looks- like it could be real, but isn't.
Gundato is right. I think there are plenty of games with non human creatures in it, but they're usually anthropomorphic in some way, because we relate better to beings that are somewhat like us than we do to some weird creature we have never seen.
I read the director of that "District 9" movie designed his "prawn" looking aliens to be bipedal because people could relate better to that than if they had had four or six legs. You see an intelligent alien on all fours and it's hard not to think of it as some kind of dog.
By the way, realism also has an audience. I don't know if it has a bigger audience than people who enjoy the fantastic, but just because a product is realistic does not mean the producers or designers are lazy. Realism is also hard to do, much more if you try to have your computer animated characters be as human as possible and create some sort of emotional reaction from the player. Cute looking characters will usually get an "awww" reaction from it's players, while badass looking ones will give you some sense of power, but ordinary human beings carrying a gun in some jungle need more than graphical design to create specific reactions from people.
One more thing: You have less to explain when you create a situation with characters people know in places people know. Some players like their games to be straightforward and not force them to dig too deep investigating what the heck they are playing. Changing some rules is good but changing them all might feel like a hassle.
avatar
AlphaMonkey: And we're still living in that mold. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Humanity's got a rich history, and I think there's still plenty of stuff to be mined, there

Sure, but don't you think we've had quite enough WWII games to last us the next 10 years?
That said, most games in fantasy settings still revolve around humans. I'm not saying that's a bad thing (I like humans... Well, some humans... Well, one human... Kind of), but the OP specifically complained about the "There Must Be A Human" attitude, and most fantasy games still have that.
I must admit that I too have a preference for non-realistic games, but I don't automatically equal a human protagonist with realism. Games are a way of escaping reality for me, which is probably why games like The Sims have never interested me. Every day, I sleep, shower, eat, work, commute, do the dishes, etc. Why on Earth would I then want to sit down in front of my computer and simulate all those things?
avatar
Starkrun: I want a game that breaks the crappy mold of "There Must Be a Human" in the game.
The only thing i can think of that pulled it off, the right way is the Oddworld saga, with a focus on Strangers Wrath. That was well outside the box and a lot of fun. No humans or anything recognizable to be seen.
We can create an alien world and make moons explode yet we always need to have human prognosticators in our games.

The funny thing is, Abe and Stranger have humanoid features (two hands with opposable thumbs, bipedal, primate-like facial structure), so their games didn't exactly break the "There Must be a Human" mold. :P
the question is more like...
why there are so many zombie shooter games...such games started spreading soon after doom3, quake4...etc..
imo zombie is the least interesting character, and now its the most popular character in gaming industry.
Post edited October 27, 2009 by ambient_orange
avatar
ambient_orange: the question is more like...
why there are so many zombie shooter games...such games started spreading soon after doom3, quake4...etc..
imo zombie is the least interesting character, and now its the most popular character in gaming industry.

The individual zombie is (usually) rather bland. But the horde, that is where the magic comes from. But I will admit that the only game to truly get the zombie genre right so far has been Left 4 Dead, but that is because the Steam community so perfectly suits a zombie movie.
The guy who feels the need to command the entire team: Either the archetypal leader, or the archetypal whackjob/security guard.
The people who complain that their team is constantly letting them down: The archetypal jerk who everybody knows is going to betray the survivors.
The newbie: The archetypal innocent who is just starting to realize how completely boned humanity is.
The lone wolf: The archetypal lone wolf...
The little kid who is using profanity as though it were going out of style: The guy who everybody hopes gets eaten.
For you see, the true stars of a zombie game are the survivors. Think of the horde of undead as props, or a backdrop for human social interaction.
And as for why it is so popular: AIDS, Avian Flu, H1N1 (aka "Piggy Flu!"), and a general fear of bioterrorism. Yeah, no idea why people would be interested in the end result of a horrifying plague/contagion... :p
Humans and reality are easy. You know how a human moves, you know how a city looks, you know how the two interact. Cuts down on development time because they don't have to decide on rules for how the 5 legged insect-ish creatures of Ventron 9 move within their salt crystal warrens and whether they'll have insect like chittering voices with subtitles that will annoy you or if they'll all sound american and just fuck up any sense of immersion
avatar
AlphaMonkey: And we're still living in that mold. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Humanity's got a rich history, and I think there's still plenty of stuff to be mined, there
avatar
Wishbone: Sure, but don't you think we've had quite enough WWII games to last us the next 10 years?

It honestly depends. If the people who design those kinds of games can keep coming up with stuff that makes the games interesting then why not keep making them? I understand that a lot of people are bored of the whole concept by now. I get that, and I'm probably one of those weirdos that -isn't.- But then again, I watch the Military Channel and I actually enjoy the documentaries on the second World War, so I suppose that I'm the demographic that games like that appeal to.
Yes, I think the WWII themed FPS has been mined extensively. Perhaps too much so. But I played through Call of Duty: World at War recently, which focused on theaters that haven't been covered as much in previous WWII games. U.S. Marine raider campaigns in the Pacific, the Russians along the Eastern Front in Europe. Sure, from a technical standpoint, they didn't bring all that much that was new or innovative to the genre, but from a story standpoint, I found that stuff interesting.
I fully admit I'm not in the majority, and if the market can no longer support games like that because there aren't enough people like me who find that kind of thing interesting, then I imagine the market will self correct: i.e. people won't buy them as much, and developers will find something else to sell.
Until then, I'm indulging in games like the CoD series, Company of Heroes and all the others.
This isn't to say that I'm "obsessed" with "realism," however. I like my fantasy and my sci-fi and what-not, too, and I think there are plenty of people out there who are willing to support forays into other genres. Just look at the resurgence of adventure games.
With a few exceptions, adventure games have never really been about the most "authentic" looking graphics, but about the storytelling and about crafting believable worlds that usually aren't anything like our own. The fact that they've been having somewhat of a Renaissance lately suggests to me that people still can find fun in that kind of thing.
avatar
ambient_orange: the question is more like...
why there are so many zombie shooter games...such games started spreading soon after doom3, quake4...etc..
imo zombie is the least interesting character, and now its the most popular character in gaming industry.
avatar
Gundato: The individual zombie is (usually) rather bland. But the horde, that is where the magic comes from.

I know you said that zombies are "usually" bland, so I just thought I'd chime in and help qualify the "usually" part.
I think that part of the reason why even an individual zombie can be an interesting subject is because it's "human but not human." The notion that this... thing you're fighting, that's trying to kill you isn't like most other kinds of opponents or enemies you find in movies, TV, video games, whatever. This isn't another person you're fighting. Not exactly. But nor is it an animal, or some kind of otherworldly demon... no, it's a person, reduced to something less than what it used to be. It has a lot of the trappings of a person, remains in a lot of ways what it was before it got zombified, but it's not quite a person, anymore. It's that sort of odd in-between nature that makes zombies eerie and creepy, I think.
Post edited October 27, 2009 by AlphaMonkey
avatar
AlphaMonkey: It honestly depends. If the people who design those kinds of games can keep coming up with stuff that makes the games interesting then why not keep making them? I understand that a lot of people are bored of the whole concept by now. I get that, and I'm probably one of those weirdos that -isn't.- But then again, I watch the Military Channel and I actually enjoy the documentaries on the second World War, so I suppose that I'm the demographic that games like that appeal to.

There's a lot of scope for ww2 games, it was after all a pivotal period of modern history. They just need to think beyond flight sims set in the battle of britain and FPS' set in normandy, wartorn france, okinawa and iwo jima. They need to think of game types and settings that haven't been used but are interesting and potentially fun
For example, I see a damned good game from this one section of a wikipedia page on the norwegian resistance:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Norwegian spotters aided in the destruction of numerous German warships, such as Bismarck and Tirpitz. The Norwegian resistance also smuggled people in and out of Norway during the war, through Sweden or by fishing boats to Shetland (referred to as the "Shetland bus"). A number of saboteurs (most notably Max Manus and Gunnar S�nsteby) destroyed ships and supplies. Perhaps its most famous achievements were a series of operations to destroy Norsk Hydro's heavy water plant and stockpile of heavy water at Vemork, crippling the German nuclear program. The Germans attempted to stifle Resistance activities and executed several innocent Norwegian men, women and children in retaliation after any Resistance act. Probably the worst act of reprisal was the assault on the fishing village of Telav�g in the spring of 1942.
Intelligence gathering within occupied Norway was very much needed for the Allied forces, and several organisations were established for this, the largest and most efficient of which was called XU. Established by Arvid Storsveen, its members were students from the University of Oslo. One interesting fact was that two of its four leaders were young women, among them Anne-Sofie �stvedt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------
Sabotage, intelligence gathering, people smuggling, rescue from attacked villages, liberated women characters (who would doubtlessly be designed to look like supermodels)... Am I the only one annoyed that I can't get this game?
Post edited October 27, 2009 by Aliasalpha
avatar
El_Caz: You see an intelligent alien on all fours and it's hard not to think of it as some kind of dog.

I'll have you know I lol'ed really hard at this line for some reason lol!
avatar
Wishbone: Sure, but don't you think we've had quite enough WWII games to last us the next 10 years?
nope, I love 'em
avatar
ambient_orange: the question is more like...
why there are so many zombie shooter games...such games started spreading soon after doom3, quake4...etc..
imo zombie is the least interesting character, and now its the most popular character in gaming industry.
check out Stubbs the Zombie.
avatar
ambient_orange: the question is more like...
why there are so many zombie shooter games...such games started spreading soon after doom3, quake4...etc..
imo zombie is the least interesting character, and now its the most popular character in gaming industry.
avatar
Gundato: The individual zombie is (usually) rather bland. But the horde, that is where the magic comes from. But I will admit that the only game to truly get the zombie genre right so far has been Left 4 Dead, but that is because the Steam community so perfectly suits a zombie movie.
The guy who feels the need to command the entire team: Either the archetypal leader, or the archetypal whackjob/security guard.
The people who complain that their team is constantly letting them down: The archetypal jerk who everybody knows is going to betray the survivors.
The newbie: The archetypal innocent who is just starting to realize how completely boned humanity is.
The lone wolf: The archetypal lone wolf...
The little kid who is using profanity as though it were going out of style: The guy who everybody hopes gets eaten.
For you see, the true stars of a zombie game are the survivors. Think of the horde of undead as props, or a backdrop for human social interaction.
Nope, you're wrong, Stubbs The Zombie.
Post edited October 28, 2009 by Weclock
avatar
Weclock: Stubbs The Zombie.

Oh yeah ! I love that game. Its lets you do everything you wanted to do as a zombie ! Toxic farts, throw your organs as grenades, eating LOADS of brains,... All is there.