Tim Cain, Mitschöpfer von Fallout, sagt, dass Gewalt in AAA-Rollenspielen der Standard sein wird, solange wir sie weiterhin kaufen: „Unternehmen machen sie nicht, weil sie Lust dazu haben.“ Sie machen sie, weil sie verkaufen.
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/fallout-co-creator-tim-cain-says-violence-will-be-the-default-in-aaa-rpgs-as-long-as-we-keep-buying-it-companies-dont-make-them-because-they-feel-like-it-they-make-them-because-they-sell/
13 Comments
Bro just say you’re not innovative or creative anymore. It’s okay
Stardew Valley also sells.
“Game companies will make games that their customers want.”
Just saved everyone from having to read the article. Must’ve been a slow day at the office…
It’s conditioning. If people *have* been taught since *they* were children *that* the way *you* progress through *a* video game is *violence*
https://www.youtube.com/@CainOnGames/videos
https://youtu.be/xAbrZtmDQfM
Weird that they’re doing articles on a dev vlog. Still, if you’re thinking of working in gaming he has more than a few worth watching.
violence is the most direct way to interact with a hostile world which most worlds are quite. it is also the most binary in outcome, your dead or they are. with a social interaction it feels off like the char option at the end of fallout nv “i was just about to kill everyone but you have convinced me to leave.”. the other side is they come off more as a puzzle then a challenge because you trying to follow the dev’s chain of logic about how the interaction should go.
Well he also talks about how its difficult to market non-violent parts of a game. Like in a shooting game a 10 second clip can show something meaningful. But how do you show meaningful quest choices or dialogue in 10 seconds?
But I’ve thought about this a lot. When I started playing games decades ago you could argue we were stuck in the platformer framework. That was dominant back then. But that was mostly because of the technology, thats what the cpus back then could handle. Then when went into 3D and things took off.
Now we are stuck in the violence framework because of sales and marketing. Theres no tech hurdle here. Yes there are a lot of non-violent games out there that sell, especially indie ones. But its undeniable that in the big leagues its violence that carries the day. I’m not sure how to get out of it. I mean I’m playing Kingdom Come Deliverance right now and its not grimdark but it can be pretty bloody.
Its just the reality though that if you want to explore these big open worlds you’re probably going to have to shoot someone or stab people while youre doing it.
Indie games are far better and endlessly available on Steam. I have played hundreds and will never go back to AAA titles
Well duh, I couldn’t be my usual pacifist self if I couldn’t slaughter a bunch of baddies in video games!
Best we can do is a “nonviolent” corporate ladder RPG where speech checks are passed based on a Street Fighter style “main character imagines a comical response to whatever” cutscene
(Good luck beating the supply clerk, all his attacks are in triplicate)
(Side quests include stirring up drama by tailoring the free candy bowl in your cubicle to get a specific coworker to gain weight)
Literally what every single company does, yet some people don’t seem to really grasp this.
Man soldier of fortune brings back so many great memories of extreme violence in video games.
Not surprised. It took UNDERTALE to revolutionize none combat interaction, even if might and magic had ‘parley’ options all the way back in the 90s.
Animal crossing is another popular game with no combat but its all social, there are no ‘encounters’ in animal crossing just procedurally generated events (and holidays), so I still point to undertale as the ‘revolution’ in that regard.
Most ‘lifestyle’ games I see also have a ‘dungeon’ section, because their most frequent feedback from hard-core players is ‘its boring, can I fight something?’