"Mature" Content in the FPS Genre

TGB

Follow

138

Forum Posts

646

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TGB

The most recent episode of Rebel FM had a very interesting discussion about mature content in video games. With the recent revelation that GTA: IV The Lost and Damned features a few racy seconds of male junk on your television screen, the crew attempted to shed some light on the subject of maturity in all of its forms. It's a good listen and I'd recommend anyone interested in the current trajectory of the industry to give it a listen. This spawned a conversation that tried to establish what should be considered "mature" content and the differences between material in a game being "mature" in the violence tolerance and sexual definition of the word or "mature" in the sense of being a concept or theme that may be inappropriate, disturbing or present subject that intellectually goes over the head of younger gamers. This discussion ignited my passions, forcing me try to deeply consider maturity in the latter sense. The Rebel FM podcast quickly turned toward the discussion of maturity in various FPS and Gears of War style games, which inspired me to conceptually think about how these type of games have matured and whether the more cerebral effects that a game has on a player reached the same level as with the ability to project realistic battle situations and graphic fidelity.

My hypothesis for this piece is that the FPS genre, with a few shining exceptions, is still stymied in a state pre-pubescence conceptually and theme wise. I think though that its is only fair that I reveal my own biases. I strongly believe that placing a player in a first person perspective in innately the most visceral and effective method for a game to put the player into the shoes of their avatar, the type of game that best translates the will of player onto the game world through a avatar.

A fine example of this type of gameplay would be when Scientists are babbling their psudo-science at Gordan Freeman while I'm playing Half-Life 2 I feel like I have complete control of my avatar and that his actions are my actions because I always have control over him and see the world through his eyes. When I'm crowbarring the scientists while they talk it's because I'm a jerk and made the personal decision that I don't really care what their saying. My jerkiness is translated fairly well into the game and makes me feel like I have a lot of control over his destiny as a character. This is I think the one aspect of an FPS that separates it from third person perspective games. The character is an extension of the character rathar than a avatar that I'm controlling like a puppet with my controller. I think there is one degree less of separation when playing a first person perspective game.

CoD: 4 is a title that does a great job of placing you into realistic adrenaline pumping situations that are relatively akin to being in a battle that takes place in a relevant and culturally important local. A lot of FPS titles are able to pull this off, I think that we have reached a point in the Genre where most games can produce graphics and moments in battles that are a mature and realistic facsimile of what occurs on a battle field. The sound, the weapons, the blood, the guts, the machines of war and societal strife. Games like the CoD series for real world scenarios and Halo for Science-Fiction style shooters have set bars of quality that most games are able to attain, the actual gun play and mechanics of these games are fun, utilitarian and show a high level of maturity for the genre in the areas of level design structure. These evolutionary process has resulted I think in the FPS genre, especially in the case of console shooters, being in the grand scheme establishing a highly playable and engrossing paradigm. These successes are mitigated by the lack of "impact" that many of these games have and by the lack of ingenuity in the genre when it come to exploring new themes.

Halo is partially to blame for this phenomenon I believe. This statement is not an attempt to sully the name of Halo in any sense, but a recognition of the impact that Halo had on how FPS games are now designed. Halo was the first huge unqualified success for the FPS on the console scene, controls and gameplay have a lot to do with this fact but perhaps the most enduring lineage that has come from this series is the idea of "pushing" the player forward. Halo and Halo 2 really cemented the idea that a FPS should push the player toward objectives and goals. They tried to eliminate the ability to backtrack or to get lost. The games are specifically designed to funnel the player from one moment, one battle to another. This gives the player direction, lessens the chances of players becoming frustrated and allows the developer to very finely tune and mold a players experience. Games like Halo for the home console and Half Life for the PC have given the industry blueprints for creating FPS experiences that allow for a high level of design and give the developers a lot of control in dictating the pace and frequency of action. This "pushing" mechanism that currently keeps most modern generation FPS games on track pacing and gameplay wise I think is having the opposite effect when it comes to physiological impact. While the gameplay has improved greatly, the decisions that your avatar make have not. Because the game is pushing the player to

achieve certain tasks and errands in the name of structure, many games forget that battlefields don't have structure. Many of these games lack fluidity, lack elements of give and take that are native to war zone situations. Kill Zone 2 was a nice step in the right direction in that it eventually presents the idea of the bleakness of war, that when fighting a war theres a chance your side could lose and that there really aren't too many super soldiers out there who can change the tide. I also give kudos to Kill Zone 2 for not glorifying your side of the conflict, even seemingly altruistic nations fighting a horrifying Fascist regime is capable of atrocities and of perpetuating seemingly endless blood shed.

Where the game fell short for me as far as maturity for the genre was that constant pushing, even though the themes that were touched were very thought provoking and mature intellectually, the gameplay and pacing rarely reflected that bleakness. The game doesn't explore the concepts of an army being forced to retreat, an army slogging through the same territory again to conquer a hill or city they had won and then lost again in a week, the dialog is very macho and mature in the expletive sense, but does not explore the impending bleakness of the war that is depicted while your playing. Kill Zone 2 may be a better, more playable game exploring the major mature themes of the game visually, rather than with gameplay or pacing. I do not fault them for making the choice as the things I wanted from the game could have been disastrous if poorly implemented, but it made me feel like Kill Zone 2 didn't really exceed other games from the genre in exploring mature content and themes.

I guess for me the hallmark game that showed the highest level of intellectual that I've seen from the genre would be the popular choice for pushing this genre forward, Bioshock. Bioshock explored a theme that was unique for the genre, rather than harping on the same WWII, modern warfare or futuristic science fiction tropes the game explores a very crystallized vision of utopianism prevalent in the 1950's. The setting was informed by a consistent and original back drop that didn't just explore the trials of war or societal strife but on the darker side of utopianism and the loss of humanity. The game utilized more of a Metroid Prime vision of exploration and pacing, the player is allowed to explore and complete tasks in the order they wish, but there are a few important road blocks that filter how the game progresses. Lastly, the most important thing that separated the games from its peer was the moral quandary with the Big Daddies and Little Sisters. The game hands the moral ball into your hands, will you harvest the Little Sisters for their essence and take down their benevolent protectors and reap the gameplay rewards, or will you choose the higher moral path be the kind of savior that Rapture so sorely needed. The game does not tell you which is the right choice but the presentation of the characters and the sheer power divide between your character and the Little Sisters informs the gamer that this is an important decision, a decision that shapes your character and what he stands for. This also compliments the gameplay as they mutations and augmentations that you receive are slowly dehumanizing you and dragging you down to the level of degeneration as the frenzied insane enemies you encounter, these powers are a necessity but also change who and what you are. All of these aspects are integrated into a very cohesive and well spun tale that I really can't go into too much as its something that shouldn't be spoiled.

CoD: 4 should also be applauded for how its methodology in creating a mature and impacting experience. It produced moments that went beyond just the battlefield, it made you question what it means to die in a game and that wars and battles don't just proceed forward in a very determinable way. The game is very "pushy" in its pace but does a nice job of exploring these other aspects of modern warfare that illustrate what it really means to be a soldier or civilian in a war zone.

Though I have a very dour and pessimistic view of the genre at this time, I still do enjoy the gameplay advances that I have seen and just hope that in the future it is possible to integrate more mature themes such as the horrors of nuclear war, guerrilla warfare, trench warfare, unending wars, colonization and other very important, very relevant themes that exist in our world. I really hope that devlopers can expand from their focus on recreating WWII, modern war and sci-fi settings in favor of different conflicts that had their own particularities. I am still waiting for a game that really explores the bleakness and the dread of World War I in an entertaining fashion. Kill Zone 2 is an interesting near-future setting allegory on World War II but the themes and purposes of that war have been beaten to death.

Well, this was a long and rambling rant. I guess it now comes to the question that I'm putting to the community. Are my opinions valid? Should maturity in the genre be defined in this way and head in that direction? What type of themes, setting and conceptions would you like FPS games to explore?

Note: This blog is so freakin long that its going to be only partially edited for a bit, I'll get back to gussying it up and making it intelligible after I take a break

15 years ago

TGB

Follow

138

Forum Posts

646

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Edited By TGB

The most recent episode of Rebel FM had a very interesting discussion about mature content in video games. With the recent revelation that GTA: IV The Lost and Damned features a few racy seconds of male junk on your television screen, the crew attempted to shed some light on the subject of maturity in all of its forms. It's a good listen and I'd recommend anyone interested in the current trajectory of the industry to give it a listen. This spawned a conversation that tried to establish what should be considered "mature" content and the differences between material in a game being "mature" in the violence tolerance and sexual definition of the word or "mature" in the sense of being a concept or theme that may be inappropriate, disturbing or present subject that intellectually goes over the head of younger gamers. This discussion ignited my passions, forcing me try to deeply consider maturity in the latter sense. The Rebel FM podcast quickly turned toward the discussion of maturity in various FPS and Gears of War style games, which inspired me to conceptually think about how these type of games have matured and whether the more cerebral effects that a game has on a player reached the same level as with the ability to project realistic battle situations and graphic fidelity.

My hypothesis for this piece is that the FPS genre, with a few shining exceptions, is still stymied in a state pre-pubescence conceptually and theme wise. I think though that its is only fair that I reveal my own biases. I strongly believe that placing a player in a first person perspective in innately the most visceral and effective method for a game to put the player into the shoes of their avatar, the type of game that best translates the will of player onto the game world through a avatar.

A fine example of this type of gameplay would be when Scientists are babbling their psudo-science at Gordan Freeman while I'm playing Half-Life 2 I feel like I have complete control of my avatar and that his actions are my actions because I always have control over him and see the world through his eyes. When I'm crowbarring the scientists while they talk it's because I'm a jerk and made the personal decision that I don't really care what their saying. My jerkiness is translated fairly well into the game and makes me feel like I have a lot of control over his destiny as a character. This is I think the one aspect of an FPS that separates it from third person perspective games. The character is an extension of the character rathar than a avatar that I'm controlling like a puppet with my controller. I think there is one degree less of separation when playing a first person perspective game.

CoD: 4 is a title that does a great job of placing you into realistic adrenaline pumping situations that are relatively akin to being in a battle that takes place in a relevant and culturally important local. A lot of FPS titles are able to pull this off, I think that we have reached a point in the Genre where most games can produce graphics and moments in battles that are a mature and realistic facsimile of what occurs on a battle field. The sound, the weapons, the blood, the guts, the machines of war and societal strife. Games like the CoD series for real world scenarios and Halo for Science-Fiction style shooters have set bars of quality that most games are able to attain, the actual gun play and mechanics of these games are fun, utilitarian and show a high level of maturity for the genre in the areas of level design structure. These evolutionary process has resulted I think in the FPS genre, especially in the case of console shooters, being in the grand scheme establishing a highly playable and engrossing paradigm. These successes are mitigated by the lack of "impact" that many of these games have and by the lack of ingenuity in the genre when it come to exploring new themes.

Halo is partially to blame for this phenomenon I believe. This statement is not an attempt to sully the name of Halo in any sense, but a recognition of the impact that Halo had on how FPS games are now designed. Halo was the first huge unqualified success for the FPS on the console scene, controls and gameplay have a lot to do with this fact but perhaps the most enduring lineage that has come from this series is the idea of "pushing" the player forward. Halo and Halo 2 really cemented the idea that a FPS should push the player toward objectives and goals. They tried to eliminate the ability to backtrack or to get lost. The games are specifically designed to funnel the player from one moment, one battle to another. This gives the player direction, lessens the chances of players becoming frustrated and allows the developer to very finely tune and mold a players experience. Games like Halo for the home console and Half Life for the PC have given the industry blueprints for creating FPS experiences that allow for a high level of design and give the developers a lot of control in dictating the pace and frequency of action. This "pushing" mechanism that currently keeps most modern generation FPS games on track pacing and gameplay wise I think is having the opposite effect when it comes to physiological impact. While the gameplay has improved greatly, the decisions that your avatar make have not. Because the game is pushing the player to

achieve certain tasks and errands in the name of structure, many games forget that battlefields don't have structure. Many of these games lack fluidity, lack elements of give and take that are native to war zone situations. Kill Zone 2 was a nice step in the right direction in that it eventually presents the idea of the bleakness of war, that when fighting a war theres a chance your side could lose and that there really aren't too many super soldiers out there who can change the tide. I also give kudos to Kill Zone 2 for not glorifying your side of the conflict, even seemingly altruistic nations fighting a horrifying Fascist regime is capable of atrocities and of perpetuating seemingly endless blood shed.

Where the game fell short for me as far as maturity for the genre was that constant pushing, even though the themes that were touched were very thought provoking and mature intellectually, the gameplay and pacing rarely reflected that bleakness. The game doesn't explore the concepts of an army being forced to retreat, an army slogging through the same territory again to conquer a hill or city they had won and then lost again in a week, the dialog is very macho and mature in the expletive sense, but does not explore the impending bleakness of the war that is depicted while your playing. Kill Zone 2 may be a better, more playable game exploring the major mature themes of the game visually, rather than with gameplay or pacing. I do not fault them for making the choice as the things I wanted from the game could have been disastrous if poorly implemented, but it made me feel like Kill Zone 2 didn't really exceed other games from the genre in exploring mature content and themes.

I guess for me the hallmark game that showed the highest level of intellectual that I've seen from the genre would be the popular choice for pushing this genre forward, Bioshock. Bioshock explored a theme that was unique for the genre, rather than harping on the same WWII, modern warfare or futuristic science fiction tropes the game explores a very crystallized vision of utopianism prevalent in the 1950's. The setting was informed by a consistent and original back drop that didn't just explore the trials of war or societal strife but on the darker side of utopianism and the loss of humanity. The game utilized more of a Metroid Prime vision of exploration and pacing, the player is allowed to explore and complete tasks in the order they wish, but there are a few important road blocks that filter how the game progresses. Lastly, the most important thing that separated the games from its peer was the moral quandary with the Big Daddies and Little Sisters. The game hands the moral ball into your hands, will you harvest the Little Sisters for their essence and take down their benevolent protectors and reap the gameplay rewards, or will you choose the higher moral path be the kind of savior that Rapture so sorely needed. The game does not tell you which is the right choice but the presentation of the characters and the sheer power divide between your character and the Little Sisters informs the gamer that this is an important decision, a decision that shapes your character and what he stands for. This also compliments the gameplay as they mutations and augmentations that you receive are slowly dehumanizing you and dragging you down to the level of degeneration as the frenzied insane enemies you encounter, these powers are a necessity but also change who and what you are. All of these aspects are integrated into a very cohesive and well spun tale that I really can't go into too much as its something that shouldn't be spoiled.

CoD: 4 should also be applauded for how its methodology in creating a mature and impacting experience. It produced moments that went beyond just the battlefield, it made you question what it means to die in a game and that wars and battles don't just proceed forward in a very determinable way. The game is very "pushy" in its pace but does a nice job of exploring these other aspects of modern warfare that illustrate what it really means to be a soldier or civilian in a war zone.

Though I have a very dour and pessimistic view of the genre at this time, I still do enjoy the gameplay advances that I have seen and just hope that in the future it is possible to integrate more mature themes such as the horrors of nuclear war, guerrilla warfare, trench warfare, unending wars, colonization and other very important, very relevant themes that exist in our world. I really hope that devlopers can expand from their focus on recreating WWII, modern war and sci-fi settings in favor of different conflicts that had their own particularities. I am still waiting for a game that really explores the bleakness and the dread of World War I in an entertaining fashion. Kill Zone 2 is an interesting near-future setting allegory on World War II but the themes and purposes of that war have been beaten to death.

Well, this was a long and rambling rant. I guess it now comes to the question that I'm putting to the community. Are my opinions valid? Should maturity in the genre be defined in this way and head in that direction? What type of themes, setting and conceptions would you like FPS games to explore?

Note: This blog is so freakin long that its going to be only partially edited for a bit, I'll get back to gussying it up and making it intelligible after I take a break

15 years ago

rexualhealing

Follow

260

Forum Posts

3197

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 Edited By rexualhealing

Videogames in general need to start looking at maturing as an artform if they're going to survive in the long term. For most gamers maturity means violence, boobs, and overuse of the word "fuck", and many literary and art types refuse to acknowledge videogames as an actual artform because a lot of the games regarded as classics usually have horrible plots or some other flaw that prevents accesibility to anyone but gamers.

Would type more on this subject but I'm kinda tired and thusly can't organize my thoughts very well at the moment.

15 years ago

penguindust

Follow

13129

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#3 Edited By penguindust

I listened to the RebelFM podcast, too and I politely disagree with the direction their conversation seemed to have been heading. I believe it's too easy to dismiss what is generally described as "gratuitous" and "unnecessary" in video games. For me, it's this separation from reality that makes them fun. I enjoy hyper attuned breast physics, chainsaw machine guns, and character models that look like they have Alex Rodriguez's cousin on speed-dial. And, it doesn't have to be completely over the top and cartoonish, just enough of a split from reality to make my in-game actions permissable. The problem I have is that too many game critics seem to supplant "mature" with "serious". And this is true in other mediums, as well. One look at the Academy Awards will exemplify that. Films that are funny or popular are dismissed in favor of flims of a more grievous nature. The one remark made during that section of the podcast that I agreed with came from a listener's comment. To paraphrase, maturity doesn't necessarily mean use of excessive violence, sexuality or language, but one's ability to handle such excesses. I don't want to see such immoderations censored from gaming to shoehorn it into a bleak definition of what is mature. I know I am likely in the minority, but hopeless, heavy-handed, morose storylines are not what I look for in my entertainment.

15 years ago

Move topic to another board