Is there a game where the future dosen't suck ?

[FalloutJack]

If the future didn't have some problem with it, there would be no plot.

This is the future world of Zonus, the most harmonious place in the whole entire universe. Nothing bad ever happens here. And as such, it's boring as hell here. Please, god, make something happen.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

Yes- in the Kirby series.

See? In the future, earth may have frozen over from a nuclear winter, but the remains of civilization motor on to make toys for the happy, adorable neighboring aliens!

So the entire Human race becomes sweatshop workers? Damn, Kirby is dark.

The reason futures suck in games is, as others have said, for conflict. Another reason is there is no such thing as a perfect future.

 

[lacktheknack]

If you've heard it before, maybe there's a grain of truth to it.

Or it just means you're just as hilariously unqualified to make psychological evaluations over the internet as most others before you. Occam's Razor seems to agree with me.

Anyways, I've entirely forgotten what I originally said. Enjoy your victory, it looks like you need it.

Straightforward enough: I said the world of Mirror's Edge was pretty well off, with Faith and company serving only to screw things up. You said just because things seemed fine didn't mean they were "right," and had no evidence to support your vague claim that things were secretly horrible.

Remember now?

Sure. There appears to be a misunderstanding, "not right" doesn't mean "secretly horrible".

Okay...then what does it mean? If something "isn't right," that implies that it violates some sort of moral standard. Generally, that means some sort of "horrible secret" behind said society, especially if the things that would ordinarily make it "not right" aren't visible.

In other words, we can't see anything wrong with the Mirror's Edge society. How can you argue that there is?

My original point (which got lost in translation... badly) that I totally failed to clarify is that there's something not right about it, as in "off" about it. So while there's no outright problems we can see (although the game doesn't give us much information), something about the atmosphere strikes me as... off. Funny. Not right.

Like say, for example, dozens of police officers appearing out of nowhere and opening fire on one specific runner with no provocation after a platonic "they don't bother us if we don't bother them" relationship between the two factions.

I'm personally hoping the sequel tells us more.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

My original point (which got lost in translation... badly) that I totally failed to clarify is that there's something not right about it, as in "off" about it. So while there's no outright problems we can see (although the game doesn't give us much information), something about the atmosphere strikes me as... off. Funny. Not right.

Erm...everything was really clean, I guess. Other than that, it's not like the intentions of the antagonists were unclear: they wanted to train their own Runners. Simple enough, no real ulterior motive.

Like say, for example, dozens of police officers appearing out of nowhere and opening fire on one specific runner with no provocation after a platonic "they don't bother us if we don't bother them" relationship between the two factions.

Yeah, except the relationship between the Runners and the police wasn't based on that. The reason the police generally didn't bother the Runners was because they couldn't catch them. It wasn't because they didn't mind what the Runners were doing. Most police officers go through their careers without ever firing their weapon in the field, and are trained that use of their firearms (or even drawing them) is an extraordinarily serious matter. The Runners themselves don't pose any clear and present danger to the officers, and thus they're stuck with nonlethal means of stopping them, and all of those are either A) entirely ineffective or B) entirely ineffective and likely to put the officer in danger.

Firearms represent the only viable way for the police to stand any chance of stopping a Runner without placing officers in mortal danger. That is, until the police tried to train their own Runners...which was met by Faith killing the ever-loving shit out of the men responsible for the project.

And in doing so, not only did she take away any chance for the police to use nonlethal means to subdue Runners, she also entirely justified the use of lethal force against Runners.

 

[lacktheknack]

My original point (which got lost in translation... badly) that I totally failed to clarify is that there's something not right about it, as in "off" about it. So while there's no outright problems we can see (although the game doesn't give us much information), something about the atmosphere strikes me as... off. Funny. Not right.

Erm...everything was really clean, I guess. Other than that, it's not like the intentions of the antagonists were unclear: they wanted to train their own Runners. Simple enough, no real ulterior motive.

Like say, for example, dozens of police officers appearing out of nowhere and opening fire on one specific runner with no provocation after a platonic "they don't bother us if we don't bother them" relationship between the two factions.

Yeah, except the relationship between the Runners and the police wasn't based on that. The reason the police generally didn't bother the Runners was because they couldn't catch them. It wasn't because they didn't mind what the Runners were doing. Most police officers go through their careers without ever firing their weapon in the field, and are trained that use of their firearms (or even drawing them) is an extraordinarily serious matter. The Runners themselves don't pose any clear and present danger to the officers, and thus they're stuck with nonlethal means of stopping them, and all of those are either A) entirely ineffective or B) entirely ineffective and likely to put the officer in danger.

Firearms represent the only viable way for the police to stand any chance of stopping a Runner without placing officers in mortal danger. That is, until the police tried to train their own Runners...which was met by Faith killing the ever-loving shit out of the men responsible for the project.

And in doing so, not only did she take away any chance for the police to use nonlethal means to subdue Runners, she also entirely justified the use of lethal force against Runners.

She killed him at the END of the game... after a hundred police officers tried to kill the ever-loving shit out of Faith.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

She killed him at the END of the game... after a hundred police officers tried to kill the ever-loving shit out of Faith.

Yes, they tried to kill her...because she's armed and dangerous, not to mention resisting arrest. And it doesn't help that every officer after the first handful is completely justified in opening fire immediately, seeing as they're dealing with the methed-up psychotic who either shot, maimed, or hurled their comrades-in-arms off rooftops.

 

[FernandoV]

Well, Enslaved is certainly prettier than all other future worlds I've seen so far, but it's not really more pleasant, you know with the robots and all that.

Now that you mention it, I'd be hardpressed to come up with any examples as well, but I think this has to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of games have conflict at heart, and what better way to create conflict than taking a time period who none of us have yet experienced, but which our lives are heading towards? A game in which you lived in a perfect future sounds boring, unless they could make a very, very unique game out of it.

You could argue that the world of Mass Effect isn't all that bad, I mean sure, there is the threat of

Spoiler

Reapers

but a lot of people living in that world, at least the Citadel seems quite content, even if they have minor inconveniences and jobs they'd like you to do. I think that's the closest I can come to an example, at least for now.

About Enslaved : It looks prettier than that most of them but it's not a happy future at all.

Mass Effect is not THAT better because humans are suffering from severe cases of Racism and every other race eyes them with jealousy because they have a specter this early. Also in Mass Effect 3 Earth will be invaded, does that sound happy ? no its not.

Yea...because there's no racism now? And by most standards the Mass Effect universe is pretty nice; they might be getting invaded but the civilizations are advanced, mostly nice and lots to do.

 

[Numb1lp]

Just preparing us for what will eventually be our future.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Megaman, (all of em, orginal, EXE, and star force) for the most part.

 

[RastaBadger]

I know technically it's a TV show but there has been games based on it so I'm gonna go with Star Trek. That future seems extremely pleasant. (minus the Borg)

 

[LiudvikasT]

EVE online has a perfect future if you are one of the capsuleers, if not then it would suck very much. But if you are one of the lucky ones then you are immortal demigod, whose only goal is to amass more power, for powers sake.

 

[LiudvikasT]

She killed him at the END of the game... after a hundred police officers tried to kill the ever-loving shit out of Faith.

Yes, they tried to kill her...because she's armed and dangerous, not to mention resisting arrest. And it doesn't help that every officer after the first handful is completely justified in opening fire immediately, seeing as they're dealing with the methed-up psychotic who either shot, maimed, or hurled their comrades-in-arms off rooftops.

Just one thing: you are rewarded for not killing anyone, just knocking them out

 

[lacktheknack]

She killed him at the END of the game... after a hundred police officers tried to kill the ever-loving shit out of Faith.

Yes, they tried to kill her...because she's armed and dangerous, not to mention resisting arrest. And it doesn't help that every officer after the first handful is completely justified in opening fire immediately, seeing as they're dealing with the methed-up psychotic who either shot, maimed, or hurled their comrades-in-arms off rooftops.

Then explain my runs, where I injure three people in the boat level, five people in the last level, and that's about it. As in no deaths at all and no injuries until the end of the game.

And "armed and dangerous"? No. The only time I picked up a gun was in Ropeburn's office, and I use it to shoot out glass, then toss it. No one even sees me use it. Cross that with the fact that I didn't even attack anyone until the freaking endgame, then I can hardly be called "dangerous".

And the developers KNEW that people would play like this, because almost all the encounters can be escaped really easily, meaning they were adding escape routes to every encounter until the boat level (which I'm told can also be done fight free, but I've never pulled it off). This means that either A. the devs are banking on me attacking people in the first level (dumb move), or B. there's something more insidious going on. I stand by the second one.

 

[Realitycrash]

After finishing Dead Space 2 (great game btw) I was wonder of how video game portrays the future, and sadly every single sci fi Video game I've played always tell us that the future will be a dark gloomy unpleasant time.

I mean seriously look at games like System Shock,Doom , Desus Ex, Halo, Crysis , Haze, Fallout and now Dead Space.

In all of those games the future is not pleasant, I know you will need a problem to solve in order to make a game but why not make beautiful future and make that problem threatens certain people at that time and not the whole world.

BUT, maybe there is a game where the future doesn't that I missed, help me Escapists is there any ?

Does Star Trek games count?

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Just one thing: you are rewarded for not killing anyone, just knocking them out

Wonderful...it's a shame then that Faith seems more than capable of killing people without firearms.

Then explain my runs, where I injure three people in the boat level, five people in the last level, and that's about it. As in no deaths at all and no injuries until the end of the game.

Hooray for anecdotal evidence! I don't suppose you have a video, screencap, etc as some means of proof. Out of curiosity, though, what were the 'injuries'?

And "armed and dangerous"? No. The only time I picked up a gun was in Ropeburn's office, and I use it to shoot out glass, then toss it. No one even sees me use it. Cross that with the fact that I didn't even attack anyone until the freaking endgame, then I can hardly be called "dangerous".

More anecdotal evidence. Fun fact, though: a trained boxer's fists can be categorized as deadly weapons. In the same vein, Faith exhibits all signs of being far more dangerous "unarmed" than most common criminals would be armed with a conventional weapon.

Besides, you discharged a firearm. In an office. If gunfire erupts anywhere near where a suspect is, police won't give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't the source.

And the developers KNEW that people would play like this, because almost all the encounters can be escaped really easily, meaning they were adding escape routes to every encounter until the boat level (which I'm told can also be done fight free, but I've never pulled it off).

Okay. Then if the developers knew that anyone could escape without laying a hand on their attackers, why did they give Faith an arsenal of moves to cripple and maim the hardworking police officers? Or let you pick up the bigger guns, whose only purpose is hardwired as "standing and shooting". Or let you use any guns at all, really.

If we're arguing creator intent, I turn to the achievements for evidence. There's one achievement for getting through without using a firearm, and one for not shooting any enemies, yet there are four achievements based on the brutal melee system. Between them, they call for 37 acts of hand-to-hand combat, one of which is a curbstomp. That reeks of "technical pacifist."

This means that either A. the devs are banking on me attacking people in the first level (dumb move), or B. there's something more insidious going on. I stand by the second one.

Erm...wait, what? How did you draw that conclusion? You took the fact that there are escape routes that let you evade police without using lethal force and concluded that, therefore, the police must be Neo-Gestapo. If you're supposed to escape rather than fight, how does that reinforce the idea that people you're going out of your way not to kill are evil?

It's the same mentality of the cast from The Matrix, considering that the lot of them were little more than glorified terrorists. In their case, we knew that the security guards and police had nothing to do with the vast conspiracy, yet the villain-protagonists slaughtered them with abandon. They had a mission they believed was right (and that's questionable, too), and perceived that anyone standing between them and it should be killed.

 

[LiudvikasT]

Just one thing: you are rewarded for not killing anyone, just knocking them out

Wonderful...it's a shame then that Faith seems more than capable of killing people without firearms.

Well she is just trying to escape, you are given achievement for not using guns. So at least she is trying to escape using non-lethal force. Besides police starts shooting first.

 

[lacktheknack]

Just one thing: you are rewarded for not killing anyone, just knocking them out

Wonderful...it's a shame then that Faith seems more than capable of killing people without firearms.

Then explain my runs, where I injure three people in the boat level, five people in the last level, and that's about it. As in no deaths at all and no injuries until the end of the game.

Hooray for anecdotal evidence! I don't suppose you have a video, screencap, etc as some means of proof. Out of curiosity, though, what were the 'injuries'?

And "armed and dangerous"? No. The only time I picked up a gun was in Ropeburn's office, and I use it to shoot out glass, then toss it. No one even sees me use it. Cross that with the fact that I didn't even attack anyone until the freaking endgame, then I can hardly be called "dangerous".

More anecdotal evidence. Fun fact, though: a trained boxer's fists can be categorized as deadly weapons. In the same vein, Faith exhibits all signs of being far more dangerous "unarmed" than most common criminals would be armed with a conventional weapon.

Besides, you discharged a firearm. In an office. If gunfire erupts anywhere near where a suspect is, police won't give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he wasn't the source.

And the developers KNEW that people would play like this, because almost all the encounters can be escaped really easily, meaning they were adding escape routes to every encounter until the boat level (which I'm told can also be done fight free, but I've never pulled it off).

Okay. Then if the developers knew that anyone could escape without laying a hand on their attackers, why did they give Faith an arsenal of moves to cripple and maim the hardworking police officers? Or let you pick up the bigger guns, whose only purpose is hardwired as "standing and shooting". Or let you use any guns at all, really.

If we're arguing creator intent, I turn to the achievements for evidence. There's one achievement for getting through without using a firearm, and one for not shooting any enemies, yet there are four achievements based on the brutal melee system. Between them, they call for 37 acts of hand-to-hand combat, one of which is a curbstomp. That reeks of "technical pacifist."

This means that either A. the devs are banking on me attacking people in the first level (dumb move), or B. there's something more insidious going on. I stand by the second one.

Erm...wait, what? How did you draw that conclusion? You took the fact that there are escape routes that let you evade police without using lethal force and concluded that, therefore, the police must be Neo-Gestapo. If you're supposed to escape rather than fight, how does that reinforce the idea that people you're going out of your way not to kill are evil?

It's the same mentality of the cast from The Matrix, considering that the lot of them were little more than glorified terrorists. In their case, we knew that the security guards and police had nothing to do with the vast conspiracy, yet the villain-protagonists slaughtered them with abandon. They had a mission they believed was right (and that's questionable, too), and perceived that anyone standing between them and it should be killed.

Here's to putting words in my mouth!

As for anecdotal evidence... I've been planning an LP of it. When it's done, I'll send you an extra special copy for your viewing pleasure. Or better yet, GO DO IT YOURSELF. It's not hard.

The injuries consist of knees to the head, groin attacks, and flying across the room and knocking him over. None of which are fatal. And also, none of them manifested until near the end.

The gun went off when NO ONE WAS NEARBY. No one would have heard it.

And as to the "neo-Gestapo" comment, no. Just no. The point was that there's so many escape routes begging to be used that the developers KNEW that a bunch of players were going to pull pacifist runs. Which means that "The police are mounting self-defense" doesn't work. Considering how much effort and hype they put in the running and how crappy the fighting is, I wouldn't be half surprised if the pacifist run is canonical (especially if they remove fighting in the sequel like everyone is asking them to). As to the achievements... there's an achievement in Half Life 2 that consists of launching a garden gnome in a rocket. Does that have any bearing on the developer's intent? And if you're going to argue that it does, let's look at the achievement list, shall we?

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/mirrors-edge/achievements/

Oh yes, the violence is SUCH a major part of the game. There's three - THREE - violent achievements (the disarms one doesn't count). There's SUCH a heavy emphasis on violence in the achievement list that it's positively OVERWHELMING me.

This is particularly delicious to me, because I play on the PC, so I didn't even know there WERE achievements.