Are games too combat obsessed?

johnny_ultimate

Not another 'OMG gaming violence' thread, but one which I though I'd bring up because it has been bothering me about game design lately - why are so many games combat obsessed?

This isn't an issue with typically combat-based genres - after all, an FPS or any action game or any fighting game is based around shooting / fisticuffs. And there are plenty of genres that thankfully usually ignore combat altogether - the likes of point and click adventures, simulators, sports games and many others (whatever genre Animal Crossing and Harvest Moon belong to too - relaxation sims??).

But there have been a very games in the last year or two - in particular Mirror's Edge and Prince of Persia - which IMO have suffered greatly by an incessant need to shoehorn in some kind of combat. Mirror's Edge is the worst offender of all - a wonderful movement engine, with the designers seemingly deadset on stopping you with pace breaking fights in the campaign everytime you try to keep running forward.

Does every action / adventure game need combat? I'd love it if there was an exploration game like Uncharted or Tomb Raider without a single enemy, just puzzles and exploring. Yet most of the bigger games these days do indeed feature some kind of gun/sword/whateverplay. Again, not to dismiss combat entirely - there will always be a place for it in many games - but as it stands combat is often the weakest element in games. Hell, even something as brilliant and atmospheric as Ico had it to a very basic degree. Game designers are always heralding 'choice', but I don't think I've found an adventure game yet (barring point and clicks, which bring restrictions of their own!) where you can negotiate your way entirely through the game - is it actually possible to play a Bioware game without hurting a single enemy (I'm pretty sure its not)?

I always enjoy action and adventure games, RPGs and many of the other heavily combat influenced genres for sure. Yet I'd also like a few games where I just don't have to kill someone if I don't want to, and for the designer not to punish me for it. The option to kill or not to kill Little Sisters in Bioshock isn't enough. Has any developer yet succeeded in this?

Edit: Just to note that this topic came to mind after I started playing the Last Guy, a wonderfully quirky Japanese zombie game, in which the goal is to run away from the monsters rather than fight them. It may be a downloadable game (the maps are entirely satellite images, which is great) but a good example of a game where running is the only defensive option (plus the risk reward system is superb - building up a line of survivors builds up your characters stats, but also increases the chance of zombie trouble).

CCCP^

What?

Mr E

Time to fire up the PS3 for a game of Flower.

ickle_pwincess

Violence sells..

Sabre0001

Mirrors Edge did suffer with the combat / shooting thrown in. I haven't finished the game as I am currently stuck in a place with a load of cops with machine guns - not fun. The combat breaks up the flow altogether. Was ok in the first level where they block a route and keep chase so you know you have a set time before they will "get you".

Did like the concept and playstyle of Mirrors Edge though.

Will have to come back to this topic when I have a bit more time....

dreamers75

ickle_pwincess wrote: »

Violence sells..

Violence sells to its intended market, plenty of massive selling games dont have combat Sims etc:

Agree with Op sometimes its shoehorned in but i think more as a filler than a design bascially the game can be completed in 1 hour so add in some **** combat to slow you down.

Sarky

You could complete all but a tiny handful of levels of the entire Thief series without killing a single thing. On the expert settings, even knocking them out was usually unacceptable. It still managed to be one of the greatest game series ever made.

Retr0gamer

I do feel a lot of gamesdo shoehorn it in but as icklepwincess said, violence unfortunately sells. Just look at how badly Ico has sold. I'm glad shadow of the colossus didn't sell out and it was all the better for having a completely empty overworld with only the colossi to fight. A lot of the time the combat really gets in the way of the game especially when it's an after thought. Just look at the original tomb raider. It would probably be a much better game with limited combat where you could take in the locales and enviroment. Uncharted suffered from bogging the player in too much combat that broke the flow of the game and Uncharted 2 improves on this but is guilty of it in some places.

I'd love an adventure game that forgoes combat but the fact of the matter is that it probably won't sell and would be very difficult to get made in todays climate.

And the opposite end of the spectrum is Bayonetta reminding us just how good violence can be.

leninbenjamin

Mirror's edge was a great concept for a game, and parts of it are truly stunning and breathtaking. Unfortunately it seems to me the marketers had too much of a say in the final product. The combat system is seriously flawed. The free running aspects ended up feeling not quite 'free' enough in parts. The end result is a mixed bag I lost interest in about half way through.

I agree with what you're saying though OP, I often find the immersion of a game can be ruined by finding oneself in repetitive and unimaginative combat situations (especially rpg's imo). All too often these days I find myself buying a new game, liking it for a few levels but after 2 or 3 hours the novelty of the weapons, graphics, plot, whatever, wears off and it just feels like any other game of it's genre. We need more games like Portal or Mirror's Edge (the good bit's)!

L31mr0d

Mr E wrote: »

Time to fire up the PS3 for a game of Flower.

Eh what are you talking about???... Flower is, by definition a, "floral combat simulator" where the aim of the game is to, as violently as possible, rip as many petals off as many plants as you can. You think that's music playing when you dismember those plants? That's actually what it sounds like when a flower screams for mercy.

Sabre0001 wrote: »

I haven't finished the game as I am currently stuck in a place with a load of cops with machine guns - not fun.

Run in a serpentine pattern towards them... seriously it works. If you hide behind pillars or run directly at them you'll get mowed down, if you run in zig zags it throws them off, allowing you to get closer and go for the slide.

K.O.Kiki

Anyone who blankly defends the "violence sells" mantra is a bit off.
Violence doesn't sell, it's just easier to market when you're slapping bullet points on the box, or even just in meetings. Just another sign of how much more growing-up the industry has to do.

@Retro: remember the 3D Broken Sword games?

Retr0gamer

When a point and click adventure puts 'action' segments in it's already failed. When it also includes stealth sections it'san abomination

Lame Lantern

A medium that has interactivity at its crux will trend toward a depiction of conflict. Even non-violent games often feature direct illustrations of strife in some variety. Obviously it's not a hard and fast rule but it makes sense that video game storytelling would capitalise on its capacity to place its users in some sort of combat.

johnny_ultimate

Sabre0001 wrote: »

Mirrors Edge did suffer with the combat / shooting thrown in. I haven't finished the game as I am currently stuck in a place with a load of cops with machine guns - not fun. The combat breaks up the flow altogether. Was ok in the first level where they block a route and keep chase so you know you have a set time before they will "get you".

Did like the concept and playstyle of Mirrors Edge though.

Will have to come back to this topic when I have a bit more time....

That would be my take on Mirror's Edge too. There is so much to like in the game. The art design is fresh and vibrant, and the running itself is a masterpiece of design (unlike something like Assassin's Creed or PoP you feel like you're in more or less total control too - even the disorientation of a rolled landing). Hence the combat just seems that bit more uninspired and lazy. There was one scene near the end with a glass room full of enemies. Completely broke the pacing of the game. I'm not sure how a developer would design a decent length game without combat to 'flesh out' the experience, but surely there is someone out there who could. Otherwise genres that don't need combat (Dreamfall pops to mind - a wonderful story interrupted by truly awful combat) will be dragged down.

L31mr0d wrote: »

Eh what are you talking about???... Flower is, by definition a, "floral combat simulator" where the aim of the game is to, as violently as possible, rip as many petals off as many plants as you can. You think that's music playing when you dismember those plants? That's actually what it sounds like when a flower screams for mercy.

An...interesting reading for flower there :pac: Great game though (and one of those rare games that can tell a story through gameplay). But I would say there is some combat in that even - crashing through the pile-ons etc.. with an extremely violent force!

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There was one scene near the end with a glass room full of enemies. Completely broke the pacing of the game.

I only beat the game at the weekend (started at 6 finished it at 12 with a 2 hour break ) and that bit was ridiculous. Didn't know where to go and after 20 minutes found out you have to shoot the massive server computers. I thought there was a bug. It was really dumb game design and there was no indication that you had to do this.

Sarky

You were told earlier to destroy the servers...

johnny_ultimate

Sarky wrote: »

You were told earlier to destroy the servers...

I was being stubborn and playing for the 'no guns' achievement which made it absurdly tricky! Also the

sniper mission

has no right or reason to be in the game.

Retr0gamer

Hmm, I wasn't listening

L31mr0d

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I was being stubborn and playing for the 'no guns' achievement which made it absurdly tricky!

Yeah when I played it first, I went for the "No Guns" achievement. I though it meant you couldn't fire any weapons, but actually it means you just can't shoot any people. That room confused the hell out of me as I didn't know how to shoot the servers. I tried luring the enemies over to me and running behind the servers in the hope that they would shoot at me and destroy them for me.

Was only after clearing the room and wandering around scratching my head that I read up online that firing a weapon doesn't nullify the achievement.

Still, I agree, it was an odd shift in pacing. Every other part of the game was passable without even having to pick up a weapon. I played through it on hard and used weapons and found it half of a game, as the weapons slowed you down.

I hope in the sequel to mirrors edge that they concentrate more on the freerunning (which was executed brilliantly) and less on the combat. Even as a freerunning game alone, like SKATE is to skateboarding, I think it would do well.

sarumite

ickle_pwincess wrote: »

Violence sells..

Peace sells.....but who's buying?

L31mr0d

sarumite wrote: »

Peace sells.....but who's buying?

Tweenage girls for their pink DS

seraphimvc

heh,thats why i love MGS series that allow you complete the game without any killing...wait...they are still some combat there tho :P

maybe we simply forget the simple fact that fighting/defeating the enemies get your blood pumping faster - if a game cant make you get excited then it just lost its selling point.

same basic idea behind the non-combat orientated games like music game,puzzle game,H-game(:P),visual novel (called AVG in Jap),or the AVG+novel hybrid like Phoenix wright series - not too hard to see that there are still some alternative forms of combat in them you need 'fight' to get the game going which get you excited.

the sims/sims city and the Harvest Moon are the only games on earth i know (and play) that not involving any 'fighting' at all - such a unique existence :Pwhich is probably why they bore me as* off (after playing for 2/3 hours:( time just flew when you play them).

so basically one way or another combat has to be inserted in making a game.i havent played mirror edge myself but judging from what i heard,i am guessing it is supposed to made into a game like Pacman,which you can only keep escaping from enemies.sound fun?i believe that could be the core idea behind the game,it is just that very hard to achieve that.(hell,i just realise that pacman CAN actually fight back and kill the ghosts in 4 limited chances)

Leprekaun

Then simply don't play them. Didn't you write a post with a similair idea but more extreme in the fighting games section?

And in the case of whether they affect people:

"Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."

You noted that Prince Of Persia has become more violence associated which is entirely untrue because the Prince Of Persia games ALWAYS involved violence (sword fighting from the very first game and similair to Mortal Kombat's pit fatality, a bunch of spikes which you could fall on if you fell.)

There are plenty of "friendly" RPGs around. They're just hidden away because like you said, violence associated games are more popular but they are there.

Sex & Violence, an age old formula for films and its been in the gaming genre for a while. As sick as it may seem when you're not watching a film or playing a game, not one person can deny the fact that they achieve some sort of joy out of those things because its just human nature. Whether people choose to adopt those things in their real lives, its down to the person hence why I said choose.

Honestly, if you have a problem with those games, then don't play them. No one put a gun to your head because otherwise, its just a case of someone whinging about how a certain thing should be stopped when the people involved in it are fine with it but regardless, still want it all to stop.

johnny_ultimate

Leprekaun wrote: »

Then simply don't play them. Didn't you write a post with a similair idea but more extreme in the fighting games section?

Did I? I'm pretty sure I've never posted a thing in the fighting games forum.

And in the case of whether they affect people:

"Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."

This isn't my point, and I said as much in my first sentence. I don't believe at all that violence in games has serious effects on most (read: sensible) people. And yes, perhaps it even has some strange psychological benefit. But that isn't relevant to this argument!

You noted that Prince Of Persia has become more violence associated which is entirely untrue because the Prince Of Persia games ALWAYS involved violence (sword fighting from the very first game and similair to Mortal Kombat's pit fatality, a bunch of spikes which you could fall on if you fell.)

Oh I know it has been there since the start. My concern is when a haphazard, low quality combat section detracts from the rest of the game. The new PoP had combat sections (with each boss repeated 4 times) in confined spaces that seemed to go against and sometimes distract from the world the designers had created. Yeah, the game should probably have combat in some form, the series has featured it in the past. Perhaps a bad example, but I still think it is an example of a game where the combat distracts from the main selling point (in the PoP games - story, movement and atmosphere).

Sex & Violence, an age old formula for films and its been in the gaming genre for a while. As sick as it may seem when you're not watching a film or playing a game, not one person can deny the fact that they achieve some sort of joy out of those things because its just human nature. Whether people choose to adopt those things in their real lives, its down to the person hence why I said choose.

Honestly, if you have a problem with those games, then don't play them. No one put a gun to your head because otherwise, its just a case of someone whinging about how a certain thing should be stopped when the people involved in it are fine with it but regardless, still want it all to stop.

I don't want all violence and combat in games too stop - plenty (if not the majority) of games have wonderful combat situations. Retr0 mentioned Bayonetta earlier - one combat based game I cannot wait for. And I can't get enough of Demon's Souls, pretty much just combat. Just two examples of hundreds, thousands even. There is joy and fun to be had out of it - I'd have given up on gaming long ago if not!

And to 'stop playing them' is missing the point. I love games, and I love film, but I always enjoy the mediums maturing and solving problems. Gaming has plenty of areas they could improve on - from design flaws such as exploding barrels (to give one recurrent example) to their representations of violence and sex (don't get me started on sex in games - one area where games are ludicrously immature and simplistic).

I just think there are some games out there whose overall quality is lessened by a reliance on what ultimately emerges as superfluous combat situations. These are games that are otherwise fantastic, let down by one element, and one which designers and audiences seem reluctant to fix. I never suggested I wanted combat totally removed from games - **** that, I enjoy a deathmatch or brilliant combo as much as anyone. I just feel to mature as an artform, gaming needs to provide more varied opportunities for play. Not every film has combat (most have conflict, which is entirely different, and it is much harder to create a compelling story without some sort of conflict) - they are able to tell different kinds of stories.

Gaming criticism will never get anywhere without a willingness to examine games and their flaws. This was just one topic I thought might be interesting to discuss, but you seemed to somewhat miss the point I was trying to make. I welcome some games being combat obsessed (and perhaps the thread should have been titled differently to illustrate that), but I'd be extremely excited to see games that weren't as well. Anyone who mentioned violence sells is unfortunately correct, but perhaps that is more a reflection on the gaming community in general. Plenty of films without combat do just fine. Why not games?

Leprekaun

I understand your points now so sorry if I misunderstood your approach.

I don't think games will ever be like films because of the fact that you watch films because you want to enjoy a story but games, well, as it is called are there to be fun and interactive. I'm sure that there are some games which mainly would be like RPGs that have a similair aspect to telling a story like a film but put it this way. A film like A Beautiful Mind just wouldn't work as a game because there just isn't any real potentially exciting elements to it which would make gamers enjoy it and its a known fact that most films that have had games made out of them often fail. For the most part, its to do with the fact of bad game design but aside from it, films where the primary focus is story just don't really work well in games. Personally, I think the best game that combines both elements would have to easily be Metal Gear Solid 4.

I'm with you about games should have richer stories. Considering that gaming themes are constantly being recycled, same way as films when it comes to themes or plots, the games that really stand out are often the ones with a well written story behind them so games like Shenmue and Metal Gear Solid have good solid stories behind them and are extremely popular.

Jumpy

Bring back Space/Kings Quest!

Grimebox

Imagine ripping a turtle's shell off his back and throwing it at his friends. Thats after jumping up and down on him. Mario is sick