But the difference is Chris Kohler actully has a POINT OF VIEW. I think Last of Us will be a great game, but I too think you could have made the same game without killing or putting so much emphasis on any killing as to change the game.
I don't often get into "what this game SHOULD have been" discussions. But, I don't mind the mental exercise of what a game could be, in fact some game which are very good are surprisingly interesting to consider differently. There have been three games out this years where I feel "not shooting, not killing" would have been valid choices if the developers had has the strength to try - Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, and The Last of Us.
Too many games seem to present the puzzle of interactions with people, animals, or just a barrel minding ist own business as and either/or shoot OR sneak. Shoot the man, animal, or barrel, sneak past the man, animal, or barrel (btw: that barrel totally saw you - its a barrel, not a bumbling Don Knotts stand in!)
Sure, out of Crystal D, Irrational Games, or Naughty Dog I think only the folks at the 'Dog Pound' could pull off an non-shooting & non-violence action/adventure game in one try; but that does not make the task impossible for any developer. I don't even think it would be hard, but the idea of the 'shooting mechanic' is so ingrained that everyone on the team would have to make a huge effort in level design, story, and game mechanics to do it non-violently. Most games are about moving from situations where you feel a vacuum of empowerment into a situation where you feel you have empowerment. The trick with a non-violent game is then to create situations of gameplay where talking, moving objects, bluffing, threatening and other actions can be used moved by player interactions from the lack of empowerment to the acquisition of empowerment.
Log in to comment