Slashdot Mirror
Genre Wars — the Downside of the RPG Takeover
Phaethon360 writes "From Bioshock and Modern Warfare 2 to even Team Fortress 2, RPG elements are creeping into game genres that we never imagined they would. This change for the most part has managed to subtly improve upon genres that needed new life, but there's a cost that hasn't been tallied by the majority of game developers. 'The simple act of removing mod tools, along with the much discussed dedicated server issue, has made [MW2] a bit of a joke among competitive players. Gone are the days of "promod," and the only option you have is to play it their way. If Infinity Ward are so insistent on improving the variety of our experiences, they don’t have to do it at the expense of the experience that many of us already love. It really is that simple. If they don’t want to provide a good "back to basics experience," they could at least continue to provide the tools that allow us to do that for ourselves.'"
The removal of Mod Tools in MW2 has nothing to do with any RPG elements. It is completely feasible for RPGs to have mods, and indeed many popular RPGs have some of the most impressive mods. Also, the summary mentions Bioshock, but that games was a 'spiritual successor' to System shock 1 & 2, and Bioshock actually was LESS of an RPG than those.
I can understand the complaint about RPG elements (in simple form) creeping into other genres, but a similar problem is faced by RPGs; they are being diluted by other genres. Look at something like Fallout 3 for an example. I'd argue that the bigger problem is that ALL game series seem to eventually slowly turn into first person shooters with light rpg elements. It's a lowest common denominator style of gameplay that is pulling in games from all directions.
I think there are two distinct issues highlighted in the story, which don't necessarily have a particularly strong connection.
The first is the creep of RPG elements into other genres. I've certainly noticed this myself, and there are a few obvious manifestations. The most obvious is the idea that the player should get more powerful over the course of the game, and that said power should not be subject to resets. If you look at a traditional shoot-em-up, the player picks up new weapons as he plays through the game, but once he gets shot and loses a life, he's generally back to the pea-shooter he started the game with. This model is now almost dead, at least in its pure form. If you look at any recent action game - Bayonetta, for example - some items (such as health potions and the disposable weapons) may be temporary, but as the player gets further into the game, they accumulate persistent upgrades, such as a longer health bar, more special moves and better weapons. In fact, a lot of games give players who have already beaten them the option of starting over, while carrying over their upgrades from previous cycles.
So why has this happened? I think the gaming industry has realised that, now that gaming is primarily an activity that takes place in the home rather than in arcades, people do not like excessive penalties for failure. Allowing a power-curve in games is pretty much established in most genres these days, but resetting that curve whenever a player makes a mistake results in people switching off the console - and loses future sales for games in that series. There are still a few titles that hold out - Mario, in particular, which even still preserves the obsolete concept of "lives" in some installments - but they increasingly look like antiquated oddities. We always seem to get a few odd cases here on slashdot who like to post on threads about MMOs saying "they'd be more fun if they had permadeath", but it's interesting that commercial MMO operators, who have to put their money where their mouth is, have never seen fit to pursue this. I think they know what they're doing.
The second issue is around the restriction of modding, which I don't really see as being at all related to the spread of RPG elements. After all, RPGs are historically highly moddable, from their roots in the pen and paper market onwards. The Neverwinter Nights games were heavily marketed with their modability as a key selling point. However, there does seem to be a trend towards restriction of modding in some genres, including fpses. I think there are two drivers for this. The first, simply put, is a "hot coffee" reaction. As certain countries (eg. Germany and Australia) adopt wildly restrictive attitudes towards video game content, developers are naturally more paranoid about being criticised (or sued) for game content that was actually added or unlocked by a third party mod. The other cause is the desire to deliver a more consistent experience.
I think this stems from the console market. Consoles have many disadvantages compared to the PC as platforms for multiplayer gaming, but they do have a big advantage; consistency of hardware. While there will still be imbalances due to connection quality, the hardware is the same in every case, so there are fewer non-skill-related variables invovled in gaming. In some ways, this actually makes the game more suitable for serious competition. There may be another factor related to something I remember relating to Quake 3; graphical "vandalism". I remember how when Quake 3 had its brief honeymoon with the gaming community (before being buried by Counter-Strike), almost all high level players (and most of the wannabes) played with graphical details that made the game look more like Carrier Command than a modern fps. I remember reading that ID weren't happy about how their game was being shown off, and that this fed into the more restrictive graphical options within Quake 3.
BS.
The author is bemoaning the fact that games currently suck. The fundamental problem is that they are serving the largest market, and as the market has become more mainstream, the average IQ of the average player has gone down. Computer games used to be the preserve of geeks, or other intellectual types willing to do something as non-jocky as play on a computer. Now, every dolt with a dim sense of consciousness is playing Halo, and their dollars are voting smart gamers out of the picture.
Games like XCom, Syndicate and System Shock will not be made any more, because there's too much money to be made serving Mr. Averagely Average.
Today, a game like System Shock would fail because I doubt even 20% of the current market would have the cerebrum to get through the first 2 levels, let alone have a chance of finishing it.
Furthermore, as game houses become more and more commercial in their decision making, risk taking and breaking the mold becomes less attractive. Why risk development funds on a mold breaking game when you can get instant cash by cranking out another FPS based on the current generation 3D engine?
Consoles are dumbing games down even more, with their painfully limited means of interacting. I liked it better in the old days when game developers had to take risks in order to keep their market interested. Being a "Doom clone" back then was a stigma. Nowadays, being just another FPS is quite honorable if you have bump sketching unobtanium enabled shading 3 days before the next game with it comes out.
Yes, I'm being an elitist snob. Yes I know you're about to mod me down. No I don't care, as long as you get off my lawn while I play 15 year old games in dosbox.
I hate printers.