Game Informer magazine recently ran an article about the upcoming "Tomb Raider" game. Over and over, the interviewees stressed the necessity of making the rebooted Lara Croft more "vulnerable" and "mortal". This seems to translate to having her sustain unavoidable injuries and watch her suffer prolonged, graphic, M-rated deaths, sometimes for failing what sounds suspiciously like QTEs. Oh, and forget about having anything as useful as a pistol for most of the game; eventually, you'll get to hit things with an ice axe.
Recently, The Escapist had an article on some of what the new Silent Hill game had to offer, notably including a combat system in which the protagonist is prone to swing wild, weapons degrade quickly, and- a first- you can only carry one weapon at a time, leaving you libel to be desperately fumbling for anything at the worst possible time. The designers cite a desire to "dis-empower" the player; perversely, this means that the escaped convict of Silent Hill: Downpour is likely to be a far less physically dangerous person than the seventeen year old girl of Silent Hill 3.
Now, far be it from me to suggest that every character in every game should be a space marine lugging around seven weapons, each of which would realistically way around fifty pounds, and several hundred rounds for each. And of course I would be remiss not to acknowledge that neither game has been released yet, so I can't comment with certainty on what might turn out to be a perfectly realized new paradigm leading to a revolutionary gaming experience that will herald two of the best games of the year.
Still... WHAT THE F$%#?!
This desire to "dis-empower" the player sounds suspiciously like the pseudo-artistic nattering of designers who are unfamiliar with the nature of the medium they've chosen. Whether we're micromanaging the lives of our Sims or building up our combo multiplier with a new weapon, a large amount of the reason people play computer games is to feel empowered. Perhaps not in the sense of the ability to destroy every inhabitant of the game world at a whim, but certainly to be offered a chance to explore, to learn the ins and outs of the game world, to grow in their understanding of their character's capabilities and make choices. And certainly not to be punished for failing to play the game in the way that conforms to the creator's "vision".
Even when I play survival horror, I don't do it to be "dis-empowered". The Silent Hill games have long made their protagonists pawns in a game far larger than themselves, but even still they frequently allowed them to choose where their priorities lay, even if they lay on the path to damnation. I said before that the Silent Hill games have never really been about combat, and it's true, but the visceral effect of the combat has far more to do with the unease at stomping one of the malformed, vomiting "patients" to death in SH2 or being saluted by your doppleganger in SH3 than in grimacing at the possibility that you'll be forced to reload your save again because you got trapped in a corner and whaled on by the designer's need to "disempower" you.
And whether or not the design succeeds in making me sympathetic to the "new" Lara Croft, I really don't want to hear her scream and whimper and cry for most of the game.
If this is the new paradigm in game design, this pushing of the hero's "vulnerability"- I have to say, it sucks.
Recently, The Escapist had an article on some of what the new Silent Hill game had to offer, notably including a combat system in which the protagonist is prone to swing wild, weapons degrade quickly, and- a first- you can only carry one weapon at a time, leaving you libel to be desperately fumbling for anything at the worst possible time. The designers cite a desire to "dis-empower" the player; perversely, this means that the escaped convict of Silent Hill: Downpour is likely to be a far less physically dangerous person than the seventeen year old girl of Silent Hill 3.
Now, far be it from me to suggest that every character in every game should be a space marine lugging around seven weapons, each of which would realistically way around fifty pounds, and several hundred rounds for each. And of course I would be remiss not to acknowledge that neither game has been released yet, so I can't comment with certainty on what might turn out to be a perfectly realized new paradigm leading to a revolutionary gaming experience that will herald two of the best games of the year.
Still... WHAT THE F$%#?!
This desire to "dis-empower" the player sounds suspiciously like the pseudo-artistic nattering of designers who are unfamiliar with the nature of the medium they've chosen. Whether we're micromanaging the lives of our Sims or building up our combo multiplier with a new weapon, a large amount of the reason people play computer games is to feel empowered. Perhaps not in the sense of the ability to destroy every inhabitant of the game world at a whim, but certainly to be offered a chance to explore, to learn the ins and outs of the game world, to grow in their understanding of their character's capabilities and make choices. And certainly not to be punished for failing to play the game in the way that conforms to the creator's "vision".
Even when I play survival horror, I don't do it to be "dis-empowered". The Silent Hill games have long made their protagonists pawns in a game far larger than themselves, but even still they frequently allowed them to choose where their priorities lay, even if they lay on the path to damnation. I said before that the Silent Hill games have never really been about combat, and it's true, but the visceral effect of the combat has far more to do with the unease at stomping one of the malformed, vomiting "patients" to death in SH2 or being saluted by your doppleganger in SH3 than in grimacing at the possibility that you'll be forced to reload your save again because you got trapped in a corner and whaled on by the designer's need to "disempower" you.
And whether or not the design succeeds in making me sympathetic to the "new" Lara Croft, I really don't want to hear her scream and whimper and cry for most of the game.
If this is the new paradigm in game design, this pushing of the hero's "vulnerability"- I have to say, it sucks.
