Cliff Bleszinski recently posed the question “The future of shooters is RPG’s, what is the future of RPG’s?” via twitter. It got me thinking, as do most things he says. My quick response was that RPG’s will coexist with shooters, that there won’t be an RPG as we know it now ten years down the road. I think I’d like to rescind that statement as I may not have thought it completely through.

RPG’s as we know them now will exist ten years down the road. I can’t say there won’t be a day when they cease to exist, but for the foreseeable future they’re here to stay. Having said that I think they’ll go through some changes. I think a lot of them will start to incorporate more co-op options as the online space continues to grow and increase in popularity. Gamers have spoken and we want co-op, even in our 50+ hour RPG’s. Hopefully the upcoming Hunted: Demons Forge can fuse the two in such a way that gamers rejoice and developers learn a valuable lesson.  

The question as it was asked was "The future of shooters is RPG's" but shooters with RPG elements have been around for a while. More and more games incorporate elements more commonly found in RPG’s. Off the top of my head, Bioshock stands out as a great example. Even games like Madden are becoming increasingly more like RPG’s and less like football sims with the ability to level up and manage teams in far greater detail than they were 10 years ago. The best example may be Call of Duty with the inclusion of perks and weapon loadouts. The multiplayer is, in the strictest sense of the word, an RPG. You grind to gain levels and unlocks. It’s genius and as sales figures can attest, extremely popular.

The current state of the industry is that of one who is still growing. I feel like we’re leaving behind our childish ways and moving on to a more sophisticated future. I don’t mean to say everything before now was childish, but that it feels as though the industry is taking on a more mature role. As a proponent of quality storytelling in games, I have to say the last several years have been a joy. This year alone has been fantastic for our medium. Games like Alan Wake and Heavy Rain made an effort to be different, to do things that nobody else had done before. Sure, they had their problems, but nothing is perfect.

I admit that’s a fairly worn out argument, but it rings true. To break from the norm is a commendable action. For years I’ve felt like videogames were champions of nonsensical violence. Recent times however indicate otherwise. We no longer require violence to hold our attention. We’re finding out that quality, compelling narratives, and interesting fictions do as much if not more for us than violence ever did. I don’t mean to pick on violence, but let’s be honest. Try and think of five games that don’t depict some sort of violent act. Off the top of my head I can think of one in the last year. Insinuated or in your face, violence is a staple of the games industry, and really of the entertainment industry as a whole.

I think we’re still in an awkward place when it comes to censorship. To this day lawmakers try and ban sales of violent games to children. It seems like the question of who is responsible for what kids play is a recurring problem. To me the answer seems clear enough, but for whatever reason there are those who take it upon themselves to argue otherwise. They aren’t ok with content in games and therefore attack the industry instead of doing what needs to be done. We all know the first and last line of defense against kids being subjected to violent material are the parents and/or legal guardians. Why some people feel like putting bans on things is beyond me. If your child gets a hold of something they shouldn’t, accept the responsibility.

Beyond violence and censorship I think we’re still trying to figure out as consumers and developers what is morally, and socially acceptable in a game. How long after a war are we “required” to wait before depicting it in a game? What about sex and drugs in games? Is there a limit to how far we can go? I certainly don’t know. I’ve yet to encounter a situation in which I had to say “Too much developer, take it down a notch.” Then again my tolerances are different than others.

Are we as consumers obligated to take a stand and decide what we believe to be right? Should developers be responsible? Ultimately we’ll decide one way or another, but who is to decide is still up in the air.  Maybe it’ll be a joint decision, that it will balance and work itself out in the end is a thought.

Something of note in the last few years is that developers are becoming less “shy.” As we get older, developers and publishers realize they can’t rely on word of mouth. In that I mean some of our industries older members are reaching out and interacting with the community, including on a national level. Five years ago who would have thought we would see a late night show host who hosted game developers. We’re becoming more and more mainstream as we get older.

I can’t say for certain how the film industry aged or progressed, but I’m sure they had the same problems we’re having. We are becoming more and more impactful on peoples day to day lives and some are uncertain of us. They aren’t of our generation. Games used to be play toys for kids and they aren’t anymore. I think that frightens a lot of people.

There was an intro paragraph promoting another website here, so I deleted it. It talked about a podcast I listened to of their's where they discussed the impact YouTube has had on videogames.

Turns out that it’s made quite an impact, and in way’s I hadn’t thought of. How many times have you been stuck in a game? And how many of those times did you use YouTube for help? They give an example of using YouTube to learn how to play Minecraft. Without a video guide, how many people would have started that game and promptly quit because they were clueless on what to do? My uneducated guess is quite a few.

Listening to the show got me thinking. Why haven’t I played a game in the last 10 years that I loved to hate? You know the games where you’d be stuck on a puzzle or stonewalled by a boss battle for hours, even days. Sometimes you could rely on friends for help, but most of the time they were useless. My strategy was to cuss the game until I emerged victorious. My parents were proud. I’m getting sidetracked.

So what caused the downfall of the difficult videogame? I blame the hardware. Over the years hardware became more powerful and therefore capable of pushing more pretty. At one point I imagine someone in a marketing office decided that pushing pretty should take precedence over everything else. Developers (at the behest of publishers?) started putting a lot of money and time into making games look as beautiful and “next gen” as they could, leaving little time for things like story, narrative, and anything else that made games fun.

The more money developers put into a project, the more they need to make in return. What’s the easiest way to do that? Appeal to a wider audience. And how do you do that? You make a hardcore market attractive to casual folks. But casual folks don’t enjoy really hard puzzles and boss battles that could take hours, even days. To court the less hardcore crowd you dumb the games down, thereby decreasing satisfaction to hardcore players.

Gone are the boss battles requiring a break 3 or 4 hours in. They’ve been replaced with bosses who have glowing orange weak spots. Listen, I’m not knocking developers. They had to do whatever they needed to keep current and relevant. If that meant dumbing down a game in order to appeal to the masses, then so be it. There’s a fine line between catering to hardcore gamers and making newcomers feel welcome. I get it, I really do. So how do we get our hardcore games back?

Seriously, who needs to step up and deliver? I’ve played some indie titles that were difficult, but not satisfyingly so. I feel like the indie scene is our best option. They’ve got the least to lose by innovating. There are Arcade titles that have proven difficult, but again, beating them never gave me the satisfaction I used to get. I want to know what you guys think. What’s the best course of action? How about a setting giving hardcore players the option to turn on or off glowing orange weak spots on enemies? Options to turn off any and all hints the game would normally provide when you get lost? Discuss, please. 

Today, I'm offering a different take on the choice system. I'm sure we've all played a game that prompts us for an input when an important decision is required. For example, in Fable III you are required to hold down either A for a good action or X for a bad action. In Mass Effect 2 your actions are preceded by good or bad dialogue choices. I want to get rid of that. I don't want a game to be intrusive anymore.

In place of having to read six + dialogue responses, or having to hold down a button, you take action. The options available to you are obvious, make a move and continue on. What's really cool is that depending on the choices you make, they can change a cut-scene later in the game. If choices A, B, and C are all tied to a good action, and choices D, E, and F are all linked to bad choices, you may come to a cut-scene in the end where your character will automatically take the course of action you most align with.

It can literally be broken down like so:

Situation A:

• Option 1 - Kill innocent people
• Option 2 – Kill bad people
• Option 3 – Do nothing and continue on

Situation B

• Option 1 – Harm innocent people
• Option 2 – Harm bad people
• Option 3 – Do nothing and continue on

You get the idea. These situations will obviously all vary and can be used as many times as needed. Keep in mind that the game no longer stops in these moments and waits on you. Everything goes on as normal, whether you choose to intervene or not. If you run right on by, people could die and you may pay for it later in the game. If you constantly choose option 1 in each encounter your character will act different in later cut-scenes than he would had you chosen option 2 in each encounter.

I ran this idea by a few people today and it raised some questions. One of which was “How does the game know what decisions you've made?” Each innocent person is tagged as option 1, if they die by your hand, the game makes note of that. When it comes time for a cut-scene the system does some math and whichever option is the most prominent, that cut-scene is played.

Which raises another question, how many cut-scenes do you plan on having? If we use the example above, you could have a minimum of 3 different cut-scenes. You could have as many as you like, making slight or large alterations depending on the frequency of the choices made. If you do nothing but good, you might see a cut-scene where your character preforms a different heroic deed than if you were somewhat good.

I hope that all makes some sense. I really can't wait for the day when I can play through a game and not have to read something during conversations. It doesn't feel natural at all. If I'm thrown into a situation that requires me to choose an action, the last thing I want is for the game to stop and wait on me. I want the process to be fluid and continuous.

I have to ask, why do you develop a game, tout it as the most "authentic" warfare experience, put loads of money into advertising, and then not stand behind it once it's released? I'm just asking, because it seems like a nonsensical thing to do.

Was nobody paying attention during development? At no point did anyone say "you know, this isn't as good as we had hoped. Let's push it back until we are happy."? I'm no industry professional, but it seems as though quality assurance should be top priority when developing a multi-million dollar piece of software.

What really confuses me about the whole thing is that you publically stated "Medal Of Honor didn't meet our quality standards." Really? Then why did you release it? I have to think this hurts whatever credibility you had prior to the games release. For several months we heard you praise the game, and once it is on shelves we hear otherwise.

I bought the game, preordered it even. I enjoyed it. Sure, it was a bit on the short side and had a few bugs, but I still enjoyed it. I can't say I would do the same for the next iteration in the franchise, given what I know now about your quality standards before and after a game releases. Unless of course you are bashing the game in public to quell those who didn't enjoy it. If that's the case, there's an entirely different post I'll have to write.