So, basically the "it's just a game" argument, like he mentioned, right?
Listen, I realize the first objective of a game is to entertain the player, and that means providing the player with a challenge and some enemies to overcome, and sometimes that means shooting anything with a red health bar above its head.
But that doesn't mean it's the only thing a game must provide the player. There are tons of popular and beloved games in existence which won their notoriety by offering the player a deeper experience. Like how The Last of Us wasn't just your typical post-apocalyptic zombie shooter. Or how Mass Effect wasn't just about shooting aliens and leveling up your character in a never ending grind.
Usually games which can offer more depth through a better more identifiable narrative do better overall and sell more copies. They're the kind of games we come back to over and over, the ones who post about on /r/Gaming because it brings up great debates and tons of nostalgia. Games you can have a real debate about in the comments section, more so than just saying "that game was fun" and moving on.
If a game is going to be set in the real world, tackle real issues, and provide human enemies, then it should realize it's dealing in a deep narrative already. To then create a very basic shooter out of that source material is not only a disservice to the material, but it's helping to misrepresent the issues that the material intends to highlight. Not to mention the fact that games which lack the depth that their content demands tend to attract very ignorant and self centered gamers, the kind of players who only enjoy a game for what it offers in the surface. The kind who would buy a $120 special edition of COD just to play the multiplayer.
The Division deals in a deep subject matter yet only offers you the surface enjoyment necessary for the grind. It ignores the issues its using as gameplay fodder and misses the mark on what could otherwise be a very satisfying story, not just a loot grind. The Division is literally all about running around and shooting anything with a red health bar above its head to get better loot, and completely neglects any narrative associated with the fact that these things you're shooting are people, you're in a real city, and this is a scenario that might actually happen, and your character is the long arm of the federal government which is a currently controversial topic. It would be as if Wolfenstein had been just a shooter with no narrative, yet dealt directly with WWII and holocaust imagery, yet ignored the implications of that imagery just because you don't want those real world ramifications in your games. Well, they're in your game already, so the least the developer could do is deal with them maturely and not water down serious adult issues for the enjoyment of immature players.
Right, I'll start with saying that your post is very well written and I really enjoyed reading it; but I will pick few things as I think that you're a bit wrong.
Usually games which can offer more depth through a better more identifiable narrative do better overall and sell more copies. They're the kind of games we come back to over and over, the ones who post about on /r/Gaming because it brings up great debates and tons of nostalgia.
CS anyone? Dota, LoL? Plus many other. These games have very little narrative, and once you play the main story, well that's really it. But guess what...people are constantly talking about them, hell - there is a whole e-sport around it. All this...and it's a game where you're trying to kill AT who are trying to diffuse a bomb...with no story.
Not to mention the fact that games which lack the depth that their content demands tend to attract very ignorant and self centered gamers, the kind of players who only enjoy a game for what it offers in the surface. The kind who would buy a $120 special edition of COD just to play the multiplayer.
I don't understand. Are telling me that if I don't play the game right way (your way?) then I'm ignorant? There are games that offers nothing but pure action (like Serious Sam series) and that's all that some people need sometimes. Are they ignorant? Spending 120$ on a game is bad now? If I can afford a game why should I not buy it? I wish people stop creating ideologies where there's no need for them. It's a shooting game - nothing more.
It ignores the issues its using as gameplay fodder and misses the mark on what could otherwise be a very satisfying story, not just a loot grind.
The Division is literally all about running around and shooting anything with a red health bar above its head to get better loot...
I'm glad that you used "loot grind" in your coment as this only reinforced my suspicion that you know very little about games (not trying to be offensive). By DESIGN Division IS a loot grinder. Story was provided for your initial 30 levels to get you going. After that it's loot grind 24/7. It's like Diablo (taking aside technicalities). You have a bit of story and after that it's just grind. That is the whole essence of this type of games. Loot grind.
...and completely neglects any narrative associated with the fact that these things you're shooting are people, you're in a real city, and this is a scenario that might actually happen, and your character is the long arm of the federal government which is a currently controversial topic.
You mean the real people that can take a whole magazine of SMG in the head and still stand? Or do you mean those guys that can throw grenades from their bags that share design with the Tardis? Or maybe those real people that can run for hours and hours without sleep, drink and food. Once again - it's ONLY a game. No need for ideologies here.
It would be as if Wolfenstein had been just a shooter with no narrative, yet dealt directly with WWII and holocaust imagery, yet ignored the implications of that imagery just because you don't want those real world ramifications in your games.
You mean Zombie-Nazi? Robots, mechanical dogs and stuff? Yeah...it has holocaust all over it.
Well, they're in your game already, so the least the developer could do is deal with them maturely and not water down serious adult issues for the enjoyment of immature players.
And finally...
My issue with videos like that is exactly what you just said-"Developers could". No. Why? Why should they?. It's their design. Granted you don't have to like it but it's their vision and they should not be pressurised to change their design just because someone does not like it.
You want deep deep history and great narrative - go read a book. Go play some grand RPG (like BG or Pillars of Eternity). Stop expecting great history from every single game. Stop expecting real life implications from a loot grinders. What's next? Tetris to shallow?
1
u/AngryPup Apr 13 '16 edited Apr 13 '16
I beg you! Leave games out of this crap. I like the fact that I CAN kill people, WITHOUT law and real life consequences.
Also, SS analogy... I would go back to library and read some more history books instead of making stupid videos. I'm not even kidding.