Blood Brain Barrier said:
I do, and I'm sure most others do too. But mostly my games are about running around killing and smashing a bunch of stuff. And I'm starting to think it's a bit.. well, asinine. But at the same time, it's incredibly fun.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, that it's morally wrong or intellectually inferior. But why are most games like this? I mean good ones, with decent graphics, quality story, good gameplay. I know there are puzzle games and stuff but they're usually budget and aimed at casual audience. I know there are sport games out there but they usually bore me after an hour or so. I know there are platformers like Mario but I doubt anyone would spend so much time with them.
But I don't want a list of recommendations of alternatives, because I have them and know they're out there. I just want to know if we're actually conscious of what we're doing most of the time - inflicting violence on imaginary creatures. Because it seems rather childish and repetitive, not the fact that it exists, but that so many games do it. Sure, Doom was exciting and new. But 20 years of the same? Game after game? And every new generation is the same, but 'improved' in some way. Will gaming be like this forever? A series of variations on ways to inflict death and pain?
Will we ever be able to come up with anything as solid and consistently satisfying as the RPG mechanic of acquiring levels of experience based on how much stuff you kill, or the action model of roaming around surviving while people trying to kill you? Because as fun as it is I don't think there's anything that gaming needs more than viable alternatives.
No offense, but you're missing the point. Games that have combat aren't necessarily repetitive because combat is just the form of conflict resolution. It's the conflict that makes the game interesting, and you can have any number of conflicts resolved by combat. That's because combat is the most basic form of conflict resolution. Any two being with opposing goals that cause conflict can resolve that conflict through combat. No matter what the conflict is, if it is between two beings, it can be resolved through combat. See, combat isn't they point of the game, it isn't what makes the games interesting or unique, it's just the mechanic. That's why they don't get repetitive. It's like asking why novels don't get repetitive. Sure, they're all written stories of a similar length, but that doesn't mean they are all the same, or even similar.
Also, combat is incredibly vague of a system to fall under. The combat in assassin's creed feels completely different from the combat in Call of duty, which feels completely different from Mortal combat, which feels completely different from FEAR, which feels completely different from Halo Wars. And those are basically genre differences. Even within the same genre, say fps, the feel of halo is very different from the feel of call of duty. Because while those are all combat, a violent form of conflict resolution, they are all different types and styles of combat.
As to why most games do that, I think it's for two reasons. Firstly, as I said, it is the most basic form of conflict resolution. Since conflict is what makes a story, almost any story you can think of can be resolved through combat. This versatility is one of the main reasons it's so common. The other is escapism. We can solve puzzles or drive a vehicle in our daily lives. In fact, most alternate forms of conflict resolution, besides combat, are used by an average person routinely. This is because combat is kinda illegal, and conflict is inevitable when you put people with different goals together. You resolve conflict on a daily basis through many mechanics, but not combat. By using combat as the basic mechanic, you provide a visceral and immediate difference from the everyday, because you don't have combat in your daily life, it is a stronger feeling of escapism.
