Attn. BioWare: A Request After Playing Mass Effect
by Chris Remo, Dec 07, 2007 6:19pm PSTMass Effect is an ambitious game, and an admirable one in many respects. Its conversation system--which combines unusually well-done superficial cinematic presentational elements, branching options, and clever "pre-selection" of dialogue allowing for realistic flow--is probably the best I have ever seen in a game.
The combat, on the other hand, does nothing for me. Our own Nick Breckon reviewed Mass Effect, and I agree with his judgment, that the narrative systems of Mass Effect are fantastic but the combat ranges from unremarkable to poor.
That's just giving some context, though. It isn't what I want to talk about here. Some of you may agree regarding the combat, and some may think it's fantastic; that isn't the point of this post, and I hope the comment thread isn't dominated by it.
Mass Effect makes me long for a game that simply eschews combat and instead relies entirely, or almost entirely, on less outwardly violent human interaction as its basic gameplay mechanics. BioWare already seems to have figured out how to do this, and Mass Effect is the company's latest example of it. BioWare, you could make this! You might have to be a bit deceptive when pitching to your EA overlords, but you have plenty of experience writing double-crosses into your games so I'm sure you'll figure it out.
Being able to double-cross webs of NPCs is one of the most satisfying character interactions I've had in a game lately, and Mass Effect is full of such opportunities. Agreeing to spy on one character, only to screw both your target and your employer at once--with that being only one possible direction--is a great feeling.
That's what would make such a game different from the traditional graphic adventures of yore, the Monkey Islands and Gabriel Knights and Full Throttles and Grim Fandangos, or even the modern-day Phoenix Wrights. Those are all brilliant games, but they are linear narratives, not fully interactive experiences. The type of game Mass Effect makes me want could still have RPG-like skills and points, but rather than just Intimidation and Charm it could have a whole range of conversation-oriented options--say, Diplomacy, Deception, and so on--with dialogue options and ramifications to match.
I know full well that voice is expensive to record, but surely such a focused game would save greatly on its development budget by needing less expense in other areas.
I mentioned this to a game designer friend earlier today, and he responded, "Well, wouldn't you want a game that has both, that has a great dialogue system and a great combat system?"
Yes! That would be rad too! However, what would be even more exciting to me would be a game that realizes it is possible to have a character- and story-driven game with intricate gameplay systems that doesn't rely on fighting and killing hundreds upon hundreds of enemies. Even if combat was reduced to a few particularly crucial encounters (you know, like in the actual films and novels by which games like Mass Effect are directly inspired), that would be enough for me.
Mass Effect isn't the only game that has made me want this. Ubisoft Montreal's Prince of Persia: Sands of Time's brilliant take on platforming could easily have sustained an entire game on its own. Irrational Games' BioShock wouldn't have been much of a game with no combat, but I'm sure some kind of gameplay could have been designed for the world of Rapture that would have resulted in fewer waves of Splicers--I think the game could have worked with just Big Daddies and additional non-combat mechanics.
I would be curious to hear from others who would be willing to try a game with Mass Effect's take on personal interaction, but little actual fighting. I'm not calling for removal of combat in games in general--most of my favorite games have plenty of combat--but games should be and are a rich, diverse medium. Surely we don't have to keep hitting the same notes.
(Upon reading this post, Nick pointed out to me the utter financial impracticality of what I propose. To that I say: fuck off. I'm not drawing up plans for my fiscal quarter here, I'm talking about what might be cool.
Plus, there has to be some way to tap into the audience of people who bought millions of adventure games in the 1990s. Most of my friends who were into adventure games back then no longer play games at all--how can we reach those people, who might not be interested in killing things virtually but are still interested in experiencing a more interactive narrative? There must be a way.)
Watch the Microsoft Xbox reveal right here
Penny Arcade's Rain Slick 4 slides out June 7
Batman actor adds confusion to Arkham Origins announcement
Dragon's Prophet enters open beta next week
Heavy Gear Assault continues crowdfunding on Kickstarter










Comments
I find myself tired of the FPS Genre. Due to the waves upon waves of enemies. Mass Effect was indeed a glimpse into how engaging story driven gaming could be, with only minimal combat to deal with.
Bioshock, although I am sure a great game, didnt keep me interested over the better part of an hour just because i felt, wow gee this is just another typical FPS disguised in a new story with different looking bosses.
I want somehting different.
Regarding linearity, part of my thinking is that the issue is not as great as many seem to think. The option to develop non-linearity into a game will always exist (and it is soo inviting), but the product then becomes much more difficult to finesse. And is it at all necessary? I mean, we're talking about games that rely on story and character, not combat and action. We're talking about literature and film, now. The method of telling these stories in an interactive way is extremely natural.. and the crafting of such an experience is meticulous, exciting and rather new territory. CRAFTING. That's the word right there. Maybe you dont know how the experience will end, but if it's crafted as well as a good movie or book, it will blow your fucking brains out.
If the market isnt there, it will grow to be there. I think the market IS the old adventure gamers. Intellectuals, especially. All those who seek escape in books and movies, but who look at current video game trends and turn their heads away without a second thought.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
I played on Veteran with Active AI on and my teammates actually kicked some ass. They still would walk in front of my barrel when I'm shooting...but motherfuckers online do that all the time. =\
I actually wasn't too impressed with the conversations since they involved so many bland characters. The voice acting was good, but only really Shepherd, Anderson, and that evil Turian dude were interesting. =\
One cool potential here is that designers could make choices that have real weight. I never felt like I did anything of consquence while talking to anyone in Mass Effect. I was either a nice guy or an asshole...but I always got tot he same end.
I'd also like to see them do more with choices that aren't so black and white.
I think this would work if the game were designed to be around 5 hours long. Perhaps additional episodes or stories. I just think any longer and I'd want a gun again.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
All you have to do is measure the violent to nonviolent content in video games to any other major form of entertainment and see that many people prefer their entertainment nonviolent and drama based. Video games haven't offered that since the 90s video games, which relied on now tired methods of gameplay. However, as Remo said, we have already perfected the gameplay methods that could be used in a nonviolent drama based video game, with mass effect being a perfect example. The problem is selling it to a publisher and marketing it in the current climate. As Remo suggested, I believe if you could get past these obstacles, there would be a market for this kind of game done well.
I should also mention I'm in no way against violent video games. I just think there should be more than that, past "casual games," and I think that there is an untapped market for this kind of game.
In Mass Effect I'm not crafting a story, I'm simply playing a slightly more elaborate choose your own adventure than before. No matter how many choices - with or without a significant impact - it's still choose your own adventure. I don't want to choose my own adventure, I want to make my own adventure.
For some reason what you said made me think of drugs wars. Old Ti-86 calculator game (and in many places) that got me through high school. A trading game, or civilization game really, where I forge alliance and backstab allies and get betrayed and all this emergent behavior is far more entertaining to me. Every player gets their own story. When I talk to friends about Mass Effect we all had the same, or similar, stories.
A non-combat game is certainly possibly, but I think trying to have a narrative in that context just isn't the way to go. Make a game that lets players create their own narrative, thats the key.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 5 replies.
Couldn't agree more. Not that i don't like pointing and shooting at things, but a nice objective look at the ubiquitous point and shoot scenario forced into every game, and it comes across as hilariously tragic. Especially nowadays as games are getting more cinematic...to see that mannequin-like arm unnaturally jutting out into your FOV, being the primary tool for progressing the storyline with every squeeze of the trigger, just comes across as, dare I say, mind numbing.
It's been beaten into our heads so much, we rarely question it or find it as odd. Obviously not all games are like this, but it seems any game with a human perspective automatically requires a gun to progress the storyline. Imagine if nearly every movie you've ever watched required a gun and killing to progress the storyline in every scene of the movie. Wouldn't that be really strange?
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
I'm actually surprised I'm still a gamer. The adventure genre was and is still my favorite due to a strong traditional narrative, puzzles, and memorable environments (I still love walking around St. George's books). Lately, many of the "adventure" games I've played are far too combat-oriented, and while I do enjoy combat in games, I don't think it needs to take center stage. I'm a Prince of Persia fan from the original game on Apple ][, and I agree with you that a PoP game with absolutely no enemies would be just as memorable as the original game and Sands of Time.
I hope developers choose to take on this challenge. To have a fully interactive, non-linear game with little to no combat would be an absolute joy. In my ideal adventure game, the combat would take place in interactive cutscenes a la RE4. Also ideally, it wouldn't be overused, but rather just enough to get the gamer excited for a combat scene instead of annoyed at rehashing the same fight over, and over, and over...
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 9 replies.
It's unfortunate though that whenever a discussion like this comes up, someone inevitably cries "MADNESS! It can't be done!!". Before you know it, someone else starts talking about nonlinearity. And then someone mentions "choose your own adventure book", and everyone's brains explode thinking that a narrative based game will need a gigantic amount of choices and narrative threads to ever succeed.
This kind of thinking is a huge trap. The limits of stories in games are no different than the limits most games have in gameplay. Just take a combat section from Mass Effect. See those hills on either side of your path? They ensure the only way for you to go is forward. See those dudes in the distance? You need to kill those. It doesn't matter if you use the sniper rifle or a shutgun, the outcome is always the same. You have to walk forward and then kill those dudes or the mission will not progress any further. (OMG, linearity! No branching paths?!?!)
Action has a pretty limited bandwidth for interaction, probably as limited as the story sections in a game like Mass Effect. You probably just notice it less because the gameplay is more immediate: you have to physically do stuff, target your gun and shoot at the right moment. These things keep you occupied and make it feel like anything is possible, even though the outcomes are ultimately totally locked in.
Anyway, I don't think there's any huge theoretical obstacles to what Chris is proposing in his blog post. The challenges are mostly of a practical nature. I would say though that if you were to take Mass Effect, leave out 95% the combat sections, and redirect the energy that was spent on those to further improving the narrative sections, you'd probably already end up with a pretty compelling product.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 4 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 11 replies.
I totally agree with your opinion on Bioshock. The splicer combat got old after the first area, and not much new was introduced. The Big Daddy combat was fantastic. I think Rapture should have had significantly less splicers, and added pockets of survivors who were actually normal. These people could send you out on quests into the crazy parts, instead of you randomly just wandering around. This structure was handled really well in Ultima Underworld, and is pretty much the system used by all the western RPGs now.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 4 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
As far as the fiscal concerns go, I just use my wife as the barometer for this sort of thing. When I'm having a cool discussion in Mass Effect, she enjoys watching me play due to the excellent voice acting and cinemagraphic aspect of the game. She's curious about what all of my dialogue options are, and which one I'll choose. She's interested in seeing how the whole issue will be resolved. As soon as combat or "exploration" pops up, she loses interest and goes back to reading a book. I think a game like what you're describing would not only be awesome and rad, I think it would have a huge built-in audience if marketed correctly. Like you said, combat wouldn't really be necessary, and it if did exist it'd be great if it were handled like in the movies - a complete last resort that often ends badly and frequently draws too much attention to the parties involved.
Hopefully someone will make this happen one day!
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 5 replies.
That's exactly what I thought a developer would take away from this, even though it's a shame. Rather than realizing they don't need combat, they think that they'll have to make combat more fun next time. Not a complete loss, just too bad.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
That's the kind of casual language that I love. Keep it up, brotha.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 4 replies.
If you could streamline the RPG aspects (god forbid I'm actually condoning dumbing down an RPG, someone shoot me now) it would appeal to a broad audience and make billions of dollars.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
I think what combat provides in a lot of games is the threat of death and punishment. Avoiding some sort of death and punishment can be a very fun and motivating thing in a game. The adreneline rush from a close call and barely pulling off a maneuver in games is very satisfying.
A game like mario can easily get away with very little combat, because its mostly about avoiding pits and obstacles. Mario really doesn't have combat outside of the few boss fights. I wouldn't really consider goomba smashing combat, its just a jumping puzzle you can squish.
I'm a huge fan of monkey island and grim fandango, but they never provide an adreneline rush b/c theres no skill involved besides thinking.
If a game was based on dialogue paths, what is the fear from choosing certain paths? How will the game punish you? Will certain decisions make the game harder and make you regret making that decision while still being fun? If so how...
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 6 replies.
You must be logged in to post.