The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ever since the dawn of time (well, almost) there has been a universal fight – good versus evil, good guy against the bad guy – it’s the oldest rivalry in the book. As current scores go, good is beating evil about 34,276,023 to 2. You see, the bad guys very rarely come out on top – that’s just the way of the world. Despite the most carefully laid plans (female companionship, world domination and lifetime financial security are amongst the most popular goals), they are inevitably foiled by someone usually considerably smaller and insignificant (think Link/Ganon, Mario/Bowser). Games are no exception to the rule, if anything, games are the area at which this balance is most heavily tipped in the balance of good – tell me, unless you’re rubbish at games, when a bad guy has ever emerged victorious…thought so.
This concept of the baddie emerging victorious can be looked at two ways – either you play as the good guy but the bad guy still wins in the game’s ending, or, to try something not traditionally done in computer games, and that is actually play the bad guys themselves.
So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won? Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a helluva lot more. Sometimes the good guy winning just doesn’t provide as suitable a climax. Take Shadowman for example, after 50 odd hours of play, the ending, quite frankly, was pathetic. But if you lost the boss battle, you were treated to a far more gratifying and enjoyable ending sequence. A poser for developers perhaps?
With the almost inevitability of sequels in the marketplace these days, how about having a game where the bad guy or antagonist emerges victorious, but leaves on a cliffhanger ending, or only scrapes by escaping from your clutches. Some people may not like the open-endedness (was that even a word?), but it sure makes looking forward to a sequel more appealing, and beats the old ‘hero defeats giant evil and then rides off into the sunset’ we’ve been given for the last 20 years (approx). It could even pave the way for a more episodic form of gaming.
And then there’s the flips side. I don’t know about you guys, but I think playing a bad guy would be refreshing. Just as actors say portraying the antagonist is much more challenging, and an ultimately a more fulfilling role, I think playing the quintessential baddie could make for a more fulfilling game playing experience – sure, you have characters like Max Payne and James Bond who kill and generally cause mayhem, but they have a reason for doing so. Wouldn’t it be more satisfying to play a character who does these things just for the hell of it, or because his mission is not as altruistic as your more traditional ‘hero’. I don’t know about you, but rather than playing an anodyne, goody goody two shoes character, wouldn’t it be much more satisfying to play an evil villain, hell bent on world domination (or any of the other usual goals). In the past, in games like Shadowman and Reaver, you play a sort of an anti-hero, but you are still fighting on the side of good.
Why not apply that concept in reverse?
I know that there are games, such as Mafia for example, where you generally play a character in a bad persona. But the vast majority of games almost force you to play the ‘good guy’ role imagine an FPS, or a first person adventure when you are the bad guy. With a good enough storyline, it’s plausible, and would be a refreshing change. Ever wanted to be Bowser and actually stop Mario capturing Peach. Better still (and Hideo Kojima is someone who I could actually see doing this – MGS3, perhaps?); imagine a Metal Gear game where you play Revolver Ocelot or Solidus Snake, where you have to devise ways to stop Solid Snake. Even better still, a game that would offer both elements of gameplay would be potentially a truly complete experience – imagine either playing as Revolver Ocelot placing guards and controlling cameras as one mode, and the traditional MGS mode as another – a truly mouth-watering prospect, and with today’s technology, a feature that is feasible.
From a commercial point of view, it could open up a whole new realm of possibilities for developers, not to mention the money making side, which is an undeniable factor. It would open up some more creative licence for developers, and could potentially give some fading games series a much needed boost of longevity and/or popularity. But the main beneficiary? Us. A more rounded gaming experience, the chance to play different types of characters, and most of all, just an enhancement in our gaming experience.
So, what if the bad guys won?
Thanks for reading – I await your opinions…
This concept of the baddie emerging victorious can be looked at two ways – either you play as the good guy but the bad guy still wins in the game’s ending, or, to try something not traditionally done in computer games, and that is actually play the bad guys themselves.
So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won? Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a helluva lot more. Sometimes the good guy winning just doesn’t provide as suitable a climax. Take Shadowman for example, after 50 odd hours of play, the ending, quite frankly, was pathetic. But if you lost the boss battle, you were treated to a far more gratifying and enjoyable ending sequence. A poser for developers perhaps?
With the almost inevitability of sequels in the marketplace these days, how about having a game where the bad guy or antagonist emerges victorious, but leaves on a cliffhanger ending, or only scrapes by escaping from your clutches. Some people may not like the open-endedness (was that even a word?), but it sure makes looking forward to a sequel more appealing, and beats the old ‘hero defeats giant evil and then rides off into the sunset’ we’ve been given for the last 20 years (approx). It could even pave the way for a more episodic form of gaming.
And then there’s the flips side. I don’t know about you guys, but I think playing a bad guy would be refreshing. Just as actors say portraying the antagonist is much more challenging, and an ultimately a more fulfilling role, I think playing the quintessential baddie could make for a more fulfilling game playing experience – sure, you have characters like Max Payne and James Bond who kill and generally cause mayhem, but they have a reason for doing so. Wouldn’t it be more satisfying to play a character who does these things just for the hell of it, or because his mission is not as altruistic as your more traditional ‘hero’. I don’t know about you, but rather than playing an anodyne, goody goody two shoes character, wouldn’t it be much more satisfying to play an evil villain, hell bent on world domination (or any of the other usual goals). In the past, in games like Shadowman and Reaver, you play a sort of an anti-hero, but you are still fighting on the side of good.
Why not apply that concept in reverse?
I know that there are games, such as Mafia for example, where you generally play a character in a bad persona. But the vast majority of games almost force you to play the ‘good guy’ role imagine an FPS, or a first person adventure when you are the bad guy. With a good enough storyline, it’s plausible, and would be a refreshing change. Ever wanted to be Bowser and actually stop Mario capturing Peach. Better still (and Hideo Kojima is someone who I could actually see doing this – MGS3, perhaps?); imagine a Metal Gear game where you play Revolver Ocelot or Solidus Snake, where you have to devise ways to stop Solid Snake. Even better still, a game that would offer both elements of gameplay would be potentially a truly complete experience – imagine either playing as Revolver Ocelot placing guards and controlling cameras as one mode, and the traditional MGS mode as another – a truly mouth-watering prospect, and with today’s technology, a feature that is feasible.
From a commercial point of view, it could open up a whole new realm of possibilities for developers, not to mention the money making side, which is an undeniable factor. It would open up some more creative licence for developers, and could potentially give some fading games series a much needed boost of longevity and/or popularity. But the main beneficiary? Us. A more rounded gaming experience, the chance to play different types of characters, and most of all, just an enhancement in our gaming experience.
So, what if the bad guys won?
Thanks for reading – I await your opinions…
Page:
Mr. Happy wrote:
I don't want Hamlet here, but even a characer of Scooby Doo-like sophistication would be an improvement.
You must be talking about the cartoon, because as far as I noticed the film doesn't have any characterisation or plot in it.
:D
I don't want Hamlet here, but even a characer of Scooby Doo-like sophistication would be an improvement.
You must be talking about the cartoon, because as far as I noticed the film doesn't have any characterisation or plot in it.
:D
Thanks for the top reply Mr Happy.
I agree with you that the question I posed is more likely to be answered as the industry as a whole develops, rather than just one developer bucking a trend. But I think the transistion will also be achieved quicker than film, because in games there is arguably less diversity and scope - there are a lot of things you can do in games that you watch in a movie, but it wouldn't necessarily be a good game. But I did allude to bad guys becoming a greater part of the game, story wise, when I talked about episodic gaming. Your reference to Max Payne and the whole characterisation element is also valid though.
But the bottom line is, and this post has seemed to morph into this question, do we want games to have heavy characterisation and more film-like qualities? Do we want a plot-heavy game, and is that the way forward? The only game so far, in my view, to kinda bridge the gap has been MGS2, but the reaction to that was mixed, because the chracterisation took part in cut-scenes where the player was dormant, and thus, for some it lessened the experience. It's a toughie, that's for sure.
I agree with you that the question I posed is more likely to be answered as the industry as a whole develops, rather than just one developer bucking a trend. But I think the transistion will also be achieved quicker than film, because in games there is arguably less diversity and scope - there are a lot of things you can do in games that you watch in a movie, but it wouldn't necessarily be a good game. But I did allude to bad guys becoming a greater part of the game, story wise, when I talked about episodic gaming. Your reference to Max Payne and the whole characterisation element is also valid though.
But the bottom line is, and this post has seemed to morph into this question, do we want games to have heavy characterisation and more film-like qualities? Do we want a plot-heavy game, and is that the way forward? The only game so far, in my view, to kinda bridge the gap has been MGS2, but the reaction to that was mixed, because the chracterisation took part in cut-scenes where the player was dormant, and thus, for some it lessened the experience. It's a toughie, that's for sure.
Games are usually good vs. evil, with good winning, almost always in fact. But that's because it's a relatively new industry, and if you look at other forms of entertainment they follow a similar route. Initially you start out with a completely polarised struggle between good and bad. In fact at one time in Hollywood the picture houses were so shackled by the morality lobby, that even bad guys had to turn good by the end of the film, often in wildly contrived circumstances. Picture a gangster falling on the steps of the church after finally topping his adversary and then renouncing all his deeds and begging for forgiveness. That sort of thing.
Admittedly that's not the case in games; however, we are still looking at a similar polarisation, you're either good or bad, but nowhere in between. Now it would be wrong to say that cinema didn't have any in-between men in the early years because it did, but it didn't have many. Nowadays you frequently come across morally dubious characters who are neither good nor evil but more enigmatic. Take comic book heroes; much of Batman focuses on his struggle with his inner-darkness, Spider-man is by no means a two-dimensional character.
And that's basically what it comes down to. Characterisation. Video Games tend to present caricatures, or at least stock characters, the only difference being their appearance and context. When push comes to shove Mario isn't that different from Link. He should be, but because we don't know anything about his character, other than he likes to trip out on magic mushrooms, we can't make a clear distinction.
It is changing though as gaming evolves into a more cinematic experience. Take Max Payne for example, that game had a morally dubious central character driven by revenge rather than honour and frequently sadistic to other characters. Between the frenzied bouts of bullet-time and sawn-offs you did begin to see, maybe even feel, Max's pain, and the story unfolded very much like a movie would, albeit in a comic book style. Indeed the game makes numerous references to films and TV, citing "The Usual Suspects", "Twin Peaks" and "The Big Sleep". It was something of a step forward not because of its gameplay, but because it was a game with real characters and a semi plausible script, although it was prone to pretentious imagery at almost every opportunity. Previously that was something tht was pretty much only done by movie franchise games, such as the Star Wars series, and the Bond games. Even then Max Payne did something different, it let you play an in-between man, someone who wasn't all good but wasn't all bad either. Whatever Kyle Jediknight's dilemmas are he's still at base a good-guy, tw*tting red light saber-wielding imperials with his blue light saber (ooh spot the subtle imagery there).
I wouldn't say Max Payne would be remembered for its gameplay, which was on the whole above average, but it should be remembered for pushing the character envelope. The zelda games have all been great, as have the marios, but what I wouldn't give to see Mario go on a rampage after seeing Peach butchered by mushroom-addled goombas. Or to see Link stop being such a fairy and use that sword like a man. It won't happen until the companies see that console gamers are growing up, and adult games stop being largely the perogative of the PC. Sure you get the odd console game with a bit of bite, a bit of ambiguity, but most of them are ports from the PC original anyway.
Ah well, ramble over, basically I'd say that as the gaming industry grows and games get bigger budgets they'll start to resemble films more and more, and that's when the goodie vs baddie mentality will start to fade a little. In my opinion characterisation is the key, and it's why games make such bad films and comic books make great films, because the characters in video games are shallow, emotionless automatons, and the charaters in comic books have issues, a little depth even. I don't want Hamlet here, but even a characer of Scooby Doo-like sophistication would be an improvement.
Great post by the way :-)
Admittedly that's not the case in games; however, we are still looking at a similar polarisation, you're either good or bad, but nowhere in between. Now it would be wrong to say that cinema didn't have any in-between men in the early years because it did, but it didn't have many. Nowadays you frequently come across morally dubious characters who are neither good nor evil but more enigmatic. Take comic book heroes; much of Batman focuses on his struggle with his inner-darkness, Spider-man is by no means a two-dimensional character.
And that's basically what it comes down to. Characterisation. Video Games tend to present caricatures, or at least stock characters, the only difference being their appearance and context. When push comes to shove Mario isn't that different from Link. He should be, but because we don't know anything about his character, other than he likes to trip out on magic mushrooms, we can't make a clear distinction.
It is changing though as gaming evolves into a more cinematic experience. Take Max Payne for example, that game had a morally dubious central character driven by revenge rather than honour and frequently sadistic to other characters. Between the frenzied bouts of bullet-time and sawn-offs you did begin to see, maybe even feel, Max's pain, and the story unfolded very much like a movie would, albeit in a comic book style. Indeed the game makes numerous references to films and TV, citing "The Usual Suspects", "Twin Peaks" and "The Big Sleep". It was something of a step forward not because of its gameplay, but because it was a game with real characters and a semi plausible script, although it was prone to pretentious imagery at almost every opportunity. Previously that was something tht was pretty much only done by movie franchise games, such as the Star Wars series, and the Bond games. Even then Max Payne did something different, it let you play an in-between man, someone who wasn't all good but wasn't all bad either. Whatever Kyle Jediknight's dilemmas are he's still at base a good-guy, tw*tting red light saber-wielding imperials with his blue light saber (ooh spot the subtle imagery there).
I wouldn't say Max Payne would be remembered for its gameplay, which was on the whole above average, but it should be remembered for pushing the character envelope. The zelda games have all been great, as have the marios, but what I wouldn't give to see Mario go on a rampage after seeing Peach butchered by mushroom-addled goombas. Or to see Link stop being such a fairy and use that sword like a man. It won't happen until the companies see that console gamers are growing up, and adult games stop being largely the perogative of the PC. Sure you get the odd console game with a bit of bite, a bit of ambiguity, but most of them are ports from the PC original anyway.
Ah well, ramble over, basically I'd say that as the gaming industry grows and games get bigger budgets they'll start to resemble films more and more, and that's when the goodie vs baddie mentality will start to fade a little. In my opinion characterisation is the key, and it's why games make such bad films and comic books make great films, because the characters in video games are shallow, emotionless automatons, and the charaters in comic books have issues, a little depth even. I don't want Hamlet here, but even a characer of Scooby Doo-like sophistication would be an improvement.
Great post by the way :-)
I think what RM18 was getting at was that the good guys didn't win all the time but they didn't exactly lose either. The bad dudes just.. got away.
RM18 wrote:
> So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won?
> Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would
> you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was
> me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of
> all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these
> days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a
> helluva lot more.
Well actually, it'd be disapointing to say the least. Slaving over a keyboard/joypad for such a long time would have me in tears if it was suddenly revealed that "The other side won...nevermind eh? Always a next time". It'd seem pointless. Imagine if the first game was done poorly...who'd want to play a sequel?
But I understand your point, playing Bad guys can be more fun and the best example to my mind is the Dungeon Keeper series by Bullfrog - the masters of originality. And since Warcraft 3 arrived onto our shores, we can happily pillage villages for our own delight. splendid!
However, I still don't feel that the idea had been exploited to it's full potential so I agree with your comments about it being an untapped market.
I'm guessing its only a matter of time.
Nice post RM18, most decent read I've had on here for a while....
> So what if you play a game for 20-40 hours, and the bad guys won?
> Would it really be that detrimental to your gaming experience? Would
> you think the game was a waste of money? Not in my book. If that was
> me, I’d think it original. I’d think it was innovative. And best of
> all, it’s a change, and that’s something people are looking for these
> days. Plus there’s the fact that it would make you want the sequel a
> helluva lot more.
Well actually, it'd be disapointing to say the least. Slaving over a keyboard/joypad for such a long time would have me in tears if it was suddenly revealed that "The other side won...nevermind eh? Always a next time". It'd seem pointless. Imagine if the first game was done poorly...who'd want to play a sequel?
But I understand your point, playing Bad guys can be more fun and the best example to my mind is the Dungeon Keeper series by Bullfrog - the masters of originality. And since Warcraft 3 arrived onto our shores, we can happily pillage villages for our own delight. splendid!
However, I still don't feel that the idea had been exploited to it's full potential so I agree with your comments about it being an untapped market.
I'm guessing its only a matter of time.
Nice post RM18, most decent read I've had on here for a while....
As usual Russ its a very nice post :) It would be very interesting if bad guys won, that'd wipe the fat smile of Mario :) Oh and by the way Mario is very cool!
Nice topic. That's a good idea the MGS thing, imagine a Rainbow Six tactical style gameplay. You choose whether to deploy the backup team or not, how thoroughly guards look, what equiptment and weapons they should carry, etc, etc.
[Walks off humming]
[Walks off humming]
"whilstling"?
:D
:D
Page: