PC Gamer says that Levitation is out.

[galsiah]

I'm not sure any amount of scripting could convince the interface that looking at the sky while walking forward should make you go up.

It shouldn't be too hard to do something like this...

Apparently Sabregirl and her minions are ahead of me:
http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=212722&view=findpost&p=3782828

It should be done as soon as the first decent scripter with the inclination gets bored with the standard game.

 

[yipsl]

Yeah, I'm not saying that anything along the lines of "Use the Right Analog Stick to rape your victim" could ever be considered an art piece, and I'm also fairly apprehensive of any attempt at a realistic visual portrayal. However, that doesn't mean that the theme itself should never be used. Silent Hill 2, while bordering on even my sensibilities in some of its depictions, had an ending that tied it all together to make sense and mean something. You can probably find a decent plot analysis in about two minutes of googling, but be skeptical of any that seem to revel in the "awesome coolness" of all the violence, sexual or otherwise, because there are many people that get introduced to such topics through shit, and thus don't use a little synthesis and critical thinking on them. That, and that the "awesome coolness" club is drawn to strong content like flies to, well...

I largely don't play horror games, and I don't think they should be banned because of the subject matter. When I say that certain acts should not be depicted in games, I mean that the freedom to committ those acts on the part of the gamer should not exist. If the acts occur as part of a storyline in a horror or mystery style story, it's best that the acts take place off screen and that the player encounters the aftermath.

Anyway, an enforced rating system is what will both allow developers to create what they want, people to buy what they want, kids to get what they're allowed, and other people to avoid something that may be a little too much for them. The only thing that could fuck up a situation that mutually beneficial is the reluctance of publishers to press anything that might not get any shelf space - and it wouldn't, if we keep up this "games are for kids" shit which is only perpetuated by the lack of thought-provoking and mature pieces... which, frankly, can't ever happen if we never take off the kid gloves.

I think Europe has a more mature ratings system, whether it works or not is a different story, but the idea of M being 17+ and AO being 18 is a bit silly, especially since AO games are usually not found in stores and are sexploitation for people who don't usually play games to begin with but who got tired of the "Girls Gone Wild" video they ordered off of late night G4 Dreck TV.

I ask these because I've gotten the impression you may be disillusioned by pointlessness and "shock value" more than you hate the subject matter often used for them - these subjects are, in the end, just tools for storytelling, and how they are used can be either very recklessly or with great care, and to serve an honorable end. And remember, rape, genocide, and murder do not need to be graphically portrayed, much less directly controlled by the player, to be themes in a videogame.

I'd say that a game like that should be developed with caution and opens the publisher up to all sorts of criticism much worse than that faced by Rockstar for the GTA series. Genocide is still going on and any such game should be set in an alternate world or SF situation where moral issues can be explored.

Neo Nazis would play a WWII genocide game with glee, they'd mod out the morality if they could. An African genocide game would be loved by Klansmen, even if it were about the Hutu's killing Tutsis. There are simply too many people in the real world that want to do the killing thing and only desist because they can't get away with it.

IMHO, games like the GTA series should be set in a bygone historical period or in a futuristic dystopia. The use of real organized crime or gang symbols and situations simply promote the gang lifestyle and the things that attract people to the games, the period music and parody talk radio could be implemented in a crime drama that's more film noir than urban shock.


Regarding the Foxtrots, they were reprinted this past week, so they're new to me.

 

[kingcomrade]

Why would anyone make a game where shooting blacks nets you negative karma?

Anyways, if people are dim enough to emulate gangs because they saw it in a game, you have to wonder how long it would be, otherwise, before they ended up doing it anyways. Violent people play violent games, as do non-violent people. It's the people that matter, even if they're dumb kids. I don't think censorship is the right way to keep children (or others) from emulating stuff in games, anyways. In times past children were raised by parents (outdated concept though it might be), who taught them stuff like morality.

I've been playing violent video games for almost my whole life, and you couldn't find a more harmless person (well, you could, but you know what I mean), because I had parents.

 

[galsiah]

I don't think censorship is the way forward, but I do think these issues should be treated more maturely in games.

In particular, I find it pretty disturbing when people object to the inclusion of killable children in a game, but leave in killable adults. Yes, killing children is horrific, but so is killing adults. Excluding one but not the other sends the message: don't kill kids, but killing adults isn't too bad.

I think what is needed is freedom, but with consequences and responsibility - yes, shoot a child by all means, but be prepared to alienate everyone in the game world, be lynched by angry mobs, be locked up for a long time, executed...
Including child killing in an "Isn't it fun to watch kids die?" way is irresponsible, but the same goes for adults. Killing anyone in a game should provoke reactions appropriate to the setting: if they're a dangerous terrorist / enemy combatant, don't punish the player, but perhaps do try to put over the gravity of the situation [e.g. parallel by drawing similarities between fallen comrades and fallen enemies etc.]. If you killed an innocent child, you should be hounded and persecuted until the end of the game.

Compare the games industry to the film industry. What we mostly have now are Schwarzenegger film type games: you're the good guy, go kill the bad guys. That's fairly harmless, but not great. GTA type games take things a bit further - I'm sure there are similar style films, but I don't know many.

What we're missing is the Full Metal Jacket / Platoon / Boys in the hood... style of games (in terms of style, rather than setting - no particular need for Vietnam). The closest we get is a Saving private Ryan (Medal of Honour). More realistic, but making no attempt to capture the emotion that goes with violent death.

As graphics and sound improve, it is becoming possible to display violent situations more and more realistically. No attempt is usually made to portray death any less casually, however. Do I think all games should move towards this style? Probably not - playing a game which subjects you to the emotional horror of death constantly for days probably isn't too healthy: best to stick to Schwarzenegger styles for FPS games.

For games where death is rare though, I don't see what's wrong with going the whole way. The death of an innocent on a city street should be shocking and horrific. There's nothing wrong with putting players through that (so long as it is rare). You don't teach people values by hiding away everything bad, but by showing them how to deal with any situation responsibly. If you're going to include death at all in a game, and the dead person is not totally unambiguously "A Bad Guy", then I think it should be shocking.

The current climate of censorship gives the impression that what isn't censored isn't too bad. Killing innocents is terrible, whether of adults or children. Making a distinction is not helpful.

 

[kingcomrade]

Well, I can't really get upset when Generic Retarded AI Teammate #726 gets killed by Generic AI Nazi #826, and I think trying to implement that would take away from the smoothness and playability of the game. Most of the time a game wants you to feel emotion, it's pretty contrived and kills whatever "intellectual" or emotional experience I might've been having.

 

[galsiah]

Sure - it wouldn't work for an FPS, but it might for genres where killing is less common and npcs have a bit more character.

 

[Atrokkus]

Well, I can't really get upset when Generic Retarded AI Teammate #726 gets killed by Generic AI Nazi #826,

That's it: the violence is felt only when it is intertwined with the story, making a personal impact on the player. For instance, I was pretty shocked to find Paul Denton dying in Deus Ex, and hell I didn't even need a gruesome gore animation for that. And if it was gory, then the impact would have been even deeper.

Damn, I remember playing Fallout 2 in "hardcore" mode (I wouldn't reload if something happened) and I remember how in one unfortunate encounter Marcus was critically hit for 250+ HP and died horribly, guts bursting outside and stuff. That fucking scared me to death both because I really liked Marcus as a character, and because I could not reload to bring him back to life. ANd the gory animation really amplified that emotion.

And I think that's a great thing, when a player is touched by the fictional life on the screen, not just plays it as an ordinary game. And in delivering such emotions, gore and violence are key tools, just as numerous other aspects, like sex, erotica, drug use, crying, etc etc

 

[Mech]

And btw, removing twich elements in favor of roll-based also mean SIMPLIFICATION of the game - so even ones with parkions syndrom or whatever can play it... now, we can ridicule players that cannot play a game due to inborn lack of wits - why we are so careful about players with reaction and hand coordination disabilities? Either we go 'fuck all!' or, be total carebears, otherwise it's, unfortunately, kinda hypocritical.
And besides, manually doing some skill-based dodges (speed of your dodges and effectiveness of your blocks ARE skill-dependant, as much as I recall) - is not THAT much of twitch. And it's mostly for rogues and stuff.
Or you'd the game to cast spells for you, in case you are a complete loser with no hands? Or, perhaps, you want it play itself w/o your control at all?
You already Progress quest.
Now fuck off.

That is clearly the best part of this entire thread. Loved it.

 

[Micmu]

That is clearly the best part of this entire thread. Loved it.

Whoa I totally missed that one, thanks for quoting it for a good laugh.
I bet the same person couldn't distinguish the difference between a sportsgame and a combat flight sim if it wasn't written on the box.

 

[Balor]

Well, that was a bit uncharacteristic of me, yes, but you should see a point in this anyway .
...
Question is, techically, you CANNOT dodge while staying in place, even given advanced animation and whatnot - it's not fuckin' Matrix.
Oh well, in some cases you can, but that's rare cases. It's different with block, but that's an other idea - blocking is almost not 'twitchy' at all and rather easy to perform, if really straning in the long run. And besides, you have to have REALLY complex animation system if you want a real-time dodging animations, when fighting multiple enemies. And, like I noted already - the 'manual control' of character actions is a chracteristic of TES series... if you'll move to 'point and click' BG and Fallout-like interface - that would be a different game.

Anyway, I have no problem with manually controlling combat. I liked games like Blade of Darkness, too. And Gothics, for that matter.
Roll or twitch based gameplay is simply a design desision. Nothing to do with REAL stuff like plot, dialogues and other RP-stuff that really matter. It may alienate some audience, with not adequate reaction and whatnot, but same goes for dialogues and retarded people who hate reading.
You cannot please everyone.

 

[D&DRULEZ]

Well, that was a bit uncharacteristic of me, yes, but you should see a point in this anyway .
...
Question is, techically, you CANNOT dodge while staying in place, even given advanced animation and whatnot - it's not fuckin' Matrix.
Oh well, in some cases you can, but that's rare cases. It's different with block, but that's an other idea - blocking is almost not 'twitchy' at all and rather easy to perform, if really straning in the long run. And besides, you have to have REALLY complex animation system if you want a real-time dodging animations, when fighting multiple enemies. And, like I noted already - the 'manual control' of character actions is a chracteristic of TES series... if you'll move to 'point and click' BG and Fallout-like interface - that would be a different game.

Anyway, I have no problem with manually controlling combat. I liked games like Blade of Darkness, too. And Gothics, for that matter.
Roll or twitch based gameplay is simply a design desision. Nothing to do with REAL stuff like plot, dialogues and other RP-stuff that really matter. It may alienate some audience, with not adequate reaction and whatnot, but same goes for dialogues and retarded people who hate reading.
You cannot please everyone.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Levitation was the best bit about Morrowind though. Being able to fly over the mountain ranges rather than walking the long way around them, plus, doing it at 200+ speed with the Boots of Blinding Speed, was fun.

 

[gromit]

I think Levitation could've been more fun, albeit much more cheap, if not for the interior cell system and lack of windows to go through... I'd love to cheap out on a rescue mission by flying right into Rapunzel's room, laughing all the way if there's no archers around. That, right there, is an extra path / solution that the designers don't even have to do any extra work to add. I believe Spector would have called it "emergent" before he went all "tyranny of choice" on us.