I'm sick of saving the world(s)!

[tkioz]

Am I alone in this or is anyone else sick of being the hero that saves the world, the galaxy, or universe is pretty much every damn game out there?

Oh I don't mean I want to be the bad guy trying to destroy the world, I mean I'd much rather just be a dude doing something small, rather being on a quest to destroy the source of all evil, how about I'm a dude on a quest to save one small town from a band of bandits or something?

It's so hard nowadays to sympathise with the hero, he's doing something so big, so huge, racing to save civilisation as we know it from doombots from dimension X, but it would be so much easier to sympathise with a dude just out to save his own.

It's not just video games, it's books, movies, and hell D&D is getting just as bad, every time the DM starts a quest with some wizard or duke or whatever asking the party to go save a sword or something you know "oh it's going to be us saving the world... again" why can't it just be a bloody sword!

 

[Ham_authority95]

Its true that its becoming a cliche, but stories like that are as old as human story telling.

If they could find a way to tell stories like that without people immediately saying "He will defeat the bad guy and save the world" than it would be much better story telling in my opinion.

And they have, just not enough.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

It's become norm and at the moment there's nothing much we can do about it.

 

[JacobyPAX]

Every form of media is trying to one up each other to the point of ludicrousness.

 

[THAC0]

I was saying this years ago. I agree. A smaller scale game where you have to save a town, or perhaps just one person, or something like that, would be a very nice change of pace.

 

[OctalLord]

It's hard to market simple living(Although The Sims would prove otherwise) Just going out for small goal as the end goal is going to make for a short game.

Short game makes for a waste of $60 and a pointless waste of money doesn't go as far as it used to.

For example: Say a movie comes out, it has a fairly big advertising budget everyone hears about it. Then they go to see it.

Turns out, the movie is boring. Unitresting. Not worth the $7 (or more) to go and watch. But here's the kicker: When the viewers came out of the theater, back when(Say before the internet) it would take a little while for news to spread and while it was spreading people who thought the movie would be good keep coming in while the movie is running. Earning more cash for the Director and ilk to recoup the cost and start making real money.

But now, people can come out of the movie. Say they open their mobile device and twitter to their say 40+ fans "Movie sucked, don't go see it." that's 40 less people who'd even think about going.

Doing some math: Saying the movie theater seated around 50 people, with 40(average) Twitters per person(Also assuming each person being twittered to is different)

50X40=2000

So with the cost of tickets being $7

2000X$7=$14000

So that's $14000 less that the company made.

So what if those 40 people, also twitted. Or say, posted a topic on the escapist or anywhere. Telling even more people not to see the movie. That's a nearly endless(Until we run out of people to tell) amount who aren't going to see it. Essentially making it impossible to make money, off of junk.

The same applys to games, in which if it doesn't intrest the buyers or isn't WOW-ing enough. Noone will buy it ruining the development studio since they couldn't recoup the cost and start earning some paychecks.

 

[Disaster Button]

I would love to play the villain for a change.

But it is overused. Hell, I draw the line at anything in which someone is saving the entire Universe after it somehow being endangered by someone unless there is at least a semi feasable way of it happening which always requires a suspension of belief.

Saving something on a much smaller scale like a town, or a kids birthday party would be a nice change even if I'd still rather play the villain.

 

[quack35]

Because saving the world makes you feel like you're doing something important, and it makes you want to defeat the villain/collect the sword/whatever. If it was just a game about some guy running down to the grocery store and buying some milk you wouldn't have any reason to continue playing it, because it would be boring and pointless.

 

[sshakespeare]

i'd love some of first person tower defencey style game - where you either defend or siege a city

 

[FallenTraveler]

no one... no ones gonna mention the games...? Team Ico's stuff, they are usually only two characters just struggling to survive/save one person... spose the boss fights in SotC makes it a bit more epic, but still.

although yeah, more smaller scaled games would be cool, I like l4d's style, theyre just surviving

 

[MisterShine]

If you want an epic personal tale, OP, I heartily recommend checking out Planescape: Torment. That's really all I can think of at the moment honestly. And I also lament the loss of stories with more personal, internal battles instead of larger external ones. Though I don't think they've ever been very prevalent to begin with..

 

[LifsAndlat]

I was saying this years ago. I agree. A smaller scale game where you have to save a town, or perhaps just one person, or something like that, would be a very nice change of pace.

I think a game in which you have to save just a single person's life, or maybe just a few people's, could be highly interesting. Massive, epic, storylines really can get dull after a while.

 

[tkioz]

Because saving the world makes you feel like you're doing something important, and it makes you want to defeat the villain/collect the sword/whatever. If it was just a game about some guy running down to the grocery store and buying some milk you wouldn't have any reason to continue playing it, because it would be boring and pointless.

I'm not talking about normal every day stuff, I'm not talking about boring stuff, I just think having it focused on a smaller goal, not saving the world, but rather saving something else would have more impact on the player.

 

[martin's a madman]

Well, I would like to destroy the world.

Twice.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

Well...saving the world is epic? And it makes some people without a trace of a life (coughmecough) feel somewhat important. Still, I would honestly like to play a game where I am the bad guy, or where the point is something totally obscure, like just getting to buy groceries or something. Frankly, screw the world. Unless I get a bloody monument out of it, I won't bother...

 

[DarkHourPrince]

Well, I would like to destroy the world.

Persona 3. You end it while saving it all at the same time :3

 

[quack35]

Because saving the world makes you feel like you're doing something important, and it makes you want to defeat the villain/collect the sword/whatever. If it was just a game about some guy running down to the grocery store and buying some milk you wouldn't have any reason to continue playing it, because it would be boring and pointless.

I'm not talking about normal every day stuff, I'm not talking about boring stuff, I just think having it focused on a smaller goal, not saving the world, but rather saving something else would have more impact on the player.

What if you, as the player, do not care about the object in question? The entire plot would just fall flat.