more meaningful game mechanics

[Erkki]

I didn't want to post this in the conference-inspired rambling thread, since it goes more into design. I know this isn't a design forum (if anyone knows a good one, please recommend) but I think quite a few people here might have ideas about this.

What do you think could be some of the game mechanics/verbs that could replace the popular jump/shoot/use? And could any of them become as prevalent as shooting things? Let's leave out strategy games and other more specific genres, though, and focus on games where you control a character that goes through some kind of a journey.

Some thoughts I've had:

Context-based _tup_ _tdown_ responses. Not necessarily dialogue responses (which GTA: SA had, but they were a really minor part), but compared to shooting things, this wouldn't have as easily predictable results. I imagine it like this: Q and E buttons are mapped to _tup_ and _tdown_ respectively and are used throughout the game in all kinds of situations where the player could react negatively or positively.

In a very limited way, it would enable the player to tell the game how they feel about something, and the game could react to that. Hm. I just realized... doesn't Fable do this? I haven't played it yet.

It could also make possible a lot of quick exchanges with an NPC that don't take you out of context of what you're currently doing (but some recent games do this already).

What Heavy Rain does is similar to this, I think.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Erkki

[OssK]

Well, you can go either way. If you have a lot of time on your hands, please be my guest and make a game that is, as Heavy Rain is and as a lot of adventure games are, entirely context-sensitive.

But, on the other hand, you could look at Farcry2, a game lead by some pretty intelligent people and ask, how much of that is context-based ? How much of what I am doing, seeing happens once in the game, and it's now.

I think what we said in the other thread is pretty true, try to think of what you want players to feel, experience, go through, reflect on, but not on a literal level, just emotions, subjects that matter to you, things you would like to say to the world.

Now think about how you could make them feel that, how do you feel that, in what situations, what made you think of that, how did you come up with the idea you're trying to get through ?

We're now going somewhere, try and make a story around it, how would it happen, to whom. Then come back to this thread, unload all of it in a post and the combined intelligence of the idle people will tell you what they think.

Because if you start by saying "how can I make an original game" I bet not many people will be able / willing to tell you how

[Erkki]

Well, I'm not really asking you to give me ideas for my game, in fact I probably shouldn't have brought that up as it's only slightly related to the topic [edit]deleted that paragraph from the original post[/edit], but I'd like to hear what other people think are the actual mechanics that could replace combat in games generally.

Far Cry 2 is a really amazing game, but still it's most core mechanic is combat. A lot has been said by many people about there being too much shooting, but few seem to have good ideas about what to replace it with (without turning a game into an adventure game). Maybe there isn't a common mechanic that can replace it? Is shooting/hacking people in the face the only least common denominator that works almost anywhere?

Also, I'd like to note that by context sensitive negative/positive responses I didn't mean a completely context-based approach where most actions are unique. The contexts may be rather general, such as dialogue (agree/disagree), walk past an NPC you haven't seen for a while (say hi or just nod at them), door (open normally or kick), stray zebra in a city (pet or call 911). Of course mostly having just two options in situations might impose stupid limitations.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Erkki

[toblix]

I think the wear verb has been terribly underused, for example in Simon the Sorcerer.

I've always been a fan of indirect control of a group doing non-combat stuff, like in the Settlers games, where you can only order your guys to do something, and the order can only be completed if all the prerequisites are filled, like resources and order priorities. Ah, screw it, I just realised I wasn't describing an interesting mechanic as much as I was describing The Settlers.

As for the positive/negative feedback, would that really give the game enough information to do something interesting? Also, couldn't the feedback be indirectly given through your other actions rather than choosing a thing and nodding or whatever? I don't know what I'm talking about.

Bonus kudos to everyone for the recent burst of intelligent video game discussion.

edit:

Also, I think disguises could be awesome, like in the Hitman games. It's a variation on the stealth genre (in plain sight rather than in the shadows) that could allow for really interesting stuff, especially if violence wasn't a huge part of things. Instead of just avoiding being spotted, you have to act naturally according to whatever role you're assuming (where you'd go, what you'd do and know, etc).

Edited November 25, 2009 by toblix

[Erkki]

Another way to put my question is: take combat out of Far Cry 2, Half-Life 2, GTA IV, Assassins Creed, BioShock... Simply doing that would make those games feel empty, but what could replace that?

I don't think what I suggested is enough by itself

(Edit) oh yeah, the hitman games are a pretty good example of this. At least some levels

[DanJW]

Ludo-narrative resonance eh?

[juv3nal]

Another way to put my question is: take combat out of Far Cry 2, Half-Life 2, GTA IV, Assassins Creed, BioShock... Simply doing that would make those games feel empty, but what could replace that?

I think you could definitely cobble together enough gameplay out of the non-combat stuff to sustain interest. No fighting still leaves exploration, parkour/freeclimbing/jumping, stealth, photography, driving, puzzles, and meaningful-choice dialogue adventure-y stuff.

Some more games beyond the one's you've mentioned that I'd look to for inspiration as far as removing combat would be: Beyond Good & Evil, Mirror's Edge, Thief series, Yakuza series (for city-with-all-sorts-of-hidden-bits-of-random-interactivity feel), Dreamfall (does anyone who liked that game actually like the combat in it?).

Totally doable, I think (and without resorting to the kind of quicktime-event-fest that Heavy Rain looks like it's going to be).

edit: Facade always struck me as a neat conceptual approach, but the implementation leaves something to be desired.

Edited November 26, 2009 by juv3nal

[JonCole]

I'm with Juv on this, especially most specifically with Assassin's Creed 2. There's a lot to that game that could still be great even without combat, in fact there are times where I wish there were no archers on roofs of buildings so I wouldn't have to break my pace.

Furthermore, this reminds me of an episode of Idle Thumbs that I recently listened to where the guys mentioned that Hot Scoops modded Mirror's Edge to remove all of the enemies (or something to that effect) and they sort of sighed wistfully at that prospect. So yeah, platforming is a perfectly legitimate and entertaining gameplay mechanic if treated correctly.

[OssK]

Well, more freedom seems like a way advocated by many to move video games forward. So removing one of the possible interactions with the world would seem kind of pointless to me.

Now you would like to replace combat with another interaction ?

Again, it depends on the context.

Combat in video games is mechanically the action of overcoming an obstacle. First it was dots and you could launch little pixels at them, "oh man, fire on this one, faster" yes, throwing things around, even abstract things calls for a metaphor to describe it.

And we came up with firing. Spacewar, one of the first video games of all time is that, you are a dot shooting dots, the metaphor is just there, it is the most evident way to overcome an animated obstacle, kill it.

So what you are asking is to be subdivided in my opinion :

1)Do you want to remove combat but still eliminate things

2)What is your game about, what stands between the player and his goal ?

Again, I am all but helpful but if you ask "will combats ever disappear from games" the answer is no, maybe the wave will go another way and there will be less of it but in essence, the most basic instinct of men being survival as in "killing if necessary" games will put you "in the skin" of someone "with a mission for the greater good".

Oh, and a game about assassination without combat ? I'll probably be the one to call that bullshit ;P

[toblix]

Combat is just one of an infinite number of possible ways to implement the obstacles-you-have-to-overcome, and it's mostly linked to reaction time, learning the controls, etc. There's a lot of side-mechanics in todays combat-heavy games that use other skills that are more typically associated with for example adventure and puzzle games. For example the motherfuckingly awesome Mario & Luigi games, which are based around the JRPG template with lots of random battles. This is a combat heavy game, but the "real" mechanic is learning to analyse the enemy by observing them, both alone and in groups. This type of mechanic could easily be used in a non-combat setting, for example in a Phoenix Wright game where you learn people's "tells" to see if they're lying.

I also agree with juv3nal in that those games would still be totally awesome without combat. Obviously if you just removed it, it would be weird, but it seems that some adjustments could make some of these games less combaty. For example, they could make Altair/Ezio less of a fighter and more of an athlete/acrobat/whatever, and have it so getting into combat would most likely kill you. All the other mechanics would still work, but you'd have to avoid combat completely because it'd kill you, rather than avoiding it because it sucked (in AC1, at least).

[gdf]

I want a "cry" button. On the horse bag.

[Nachimir]

Open worlds do feel really empty without the combat, though I think it's somewhat down to mission structures too. I think one of the reasons GTA games feel so empty once the story is done is that you can arse around, but there's no end to that. No matter how much fun you have with a sandbox, after so long it will tend to drift into a large tract of boredom and repetition, and that's when you'll switch it off. There's something to be said for "THE END".

Another way to put my question is: take combat out of Far Cry 2, Half-Life 2, GTA IV, Assassins Creed, BioShock... Simply doing that would make those games feel empty, but what could replace that?

Really interesting question. There are plenty of mechanics, but few that directly replace combat. Juv already mentioned photography, which is the only close one I can think of in terms of pointing and shooting.

Photography mechanics tend to fall a little flat because they lack drama. Taking a photo is a comtemplative act, not a rushed or pressured one. Can you imagine Route Kanal with a camera instead of a gun? Can you imagine an entire game coming up with tortuous explanations for level after level of frenetically rushing along, photographing people that want to shoot you as you pass?

Syntactical systems dealing with whether or not something is in the frame, and how big it appears, are also a weird halfway house that seems to jibe well with the idea of photography, and encourage it as an act of composition, but nonethless tend to result in images that are shit. Combat is simpler: People either do have bullets in them or they don't.

I thought the helicopter sequence at the start of Dead Rising was fairly well implemented. Are there any games that have been entirely based around photography, or is it always a secondary mechanic around combat?

[toblix]

There's a bunch of photography games, like the safari ones I can't remember the name of, and I think Fatal Frame? You could always argue that the camera is just a non-violent weapon. You're aiming at moving targets, etc.

[miffy495]

I want a "cry" button. On the horse bag.

Are you crying or is the horse bag? Important distinctions here.

Are there any games that have been entirely based around photography, or is it always a secondary mechanic around combat?

I believe the Japanese survival horror franchise Fatal Frame had you taking pictures of ghosts as a way of trapping them in a camera. You play the entire game as a little girl in a haunted town who has nothing to her name except said camera. Haven't played it myself, but from what I've gathered it's scary as shit.

EDIT: Damn you, 'blix.

[BigJKO]

Can you imagine an entire game coming up with tortuous explanations for level after level of frenetically rushing along, photographing people that want to shoot you as you pass?

Modern Warfare 3: The War Journalist?

I would actually play that..

[Erkki]

Well, more freedom seems like a way advocated by many to move video games forward. So removing one of the possible interactions with the world would seem kind of pointless to me.

That's exactly what I'm talking about: combat has become so natural in games that removing it seems limiting. Maybe it's because it's so prevalent currently and historically or is it just in the nature of games that fighting enemies is the easiest obstacle the designer can put in front of the player or the easiest thing to relate to for players, even though most of us don't do it in real lives? It could be escapism: we want to do in games what we are not able to in real life, but I don't think that's necessary the prevalent reason we play games. Could games have evolved differently to a place where combat is not seen as the 'default' mechanic?

Yes, Mirror's Edge is a good example where combat could be easily removed without making the game lacking something.

[toblix]

Yes, Mirror's Edge is a good example where combat could be easily removed without making the game lacking something.

That depends. If you mean direct combat, then yes, but all the urgent sequences were motivated by people chasing and/or shooting at you, which is still combat. If you removed that, it'd be a different game, more like Portal (ignore turrets and boss battle plz thx).

[ysbreker]

Yes, Mirror's Edge is a good example where combat could be easily removed without making the game lacking something.

Didn't they do exactly that with the extra levels they brought out? A set of abstract parcours you had to traverse?

after a quick trip to google: http://www.mirrorsedge.com/ls/en/index.asp#/thewire/

[Murdoc]

Not much to add other then something I thought of when reading this thread; but anyone remember Oregon Trail? Wonder why a game like that wouldn't work, it was literally about trying to survive to go from point A to point B and, from what I remember, the only condition of winning was actually getting there alive.

Yet instead of combating a horse of zombies, terrorists, or nazies; it was hunger, disease and the elements... yet I can't think of any modern game that has tried to employee a oregon trail style of design... am I under thinking this?

[JonCole]

Not much to add other then something I thought of when reading this thread; but anyone remember Oregon Trail? Wonder why a game like that wouldn't work, it was literally about trying to survive to go from point A to point B and, from what I remember, the only condition of winning was actually getting there alive.

Yet instead of combating a horse of zombies, terrorists, or nazies; it was hunger, disease and the elements... yet I can't think of any modern game that has tried to employee a oregon trail style of design... am I under thinking this?

Oregon Trail iPhone?

[OssK]

In point and shoot you could not really make much analogies outside shooting, but it could actually be such a small part of a game that you would not mind, think about Ocarina of time and the slingshot / bow, nobody would call that game a shooter, yet it uses this mechanic when needed.

Haven't played it myself, but from what I've gathered it's scary as shit.

Thing is, you can only capture ghost when they appear on the camera, and that only happens when they jump at you so yes, this game is probably made by Jumpscare-the-fuck-out-of-ya inc.

I've always been a fan of indirect control of a group doing non-combat stuff, like in the Settlers games, where you can only order your guys to do something, and the order can only be completed if all the prerequisites are filled, like resources and order priorities. Ah, screw it, I just realised I wasn't describing an interesting mechanic as much as I was describing The Settlers.

Well, that doesn't really happen because there is only so much you can manage but I would easily picture a game in which you have to micro your units to build things (go fetch wood, now assemble sturcture and here is the plan and if you don't tell them the next step they just don't do anything and your building is just a wood structure with properties : defense against beasts/monsters : 0 defense agains weather : 0 defense against thieves : 0)

Yet instead of combating a horse of zombies, terrorists, or nazies; it was hunger, disease and the elements... yet I can't think of any modern game that has tried to employee a oregon trail style of design... am I under thinking this?

Well, the sims is pretty much that.

Didn't they do exactly that with the extra levels they brought out? A set of abstract parcours you had to traverse?

Not really, the urgency provided by a timer displayed and a bunch of people chasing you with guns is not the same in my opinion, and however well made the DLC levels were, I doubt that it could rival the pure thrill of doing that in a "known" environment.

Modern Warfare 3: The War Journalist?

That is exactly what I thought and I would play it…*Oh wait, mix that with the above and you have Beyond Good and Evil 2 FPS I think

There's a bunch of photography games, like the safari ones I can't remember the name of, and I think Fatal Frame? You could always argue that the camera is just a non-violent weapon. You're aiming at moving targets, etc.

Nope, it's not really the same for targets do not "respond" to our actions, because that's what happens in real life, people might not even notice that you're taking their picture, whereas I think you do know when a bullet penetrates your chest.

So you could make a shooter with not lethal weapons like a everyday cop shooter with rubber bullets and tasers but I think the message you would convey is "hey, look, it's fun to shoot protestors, go get hired in the police" which is pretty lame…

Oh… Man…*Cupid, the game... of Love.

That would so be awesome, different arrows for different types of peoples and try to match them together with their personalities... You'd make a believable little park in which people do stuff, they would have invisible stats that draw them towards activities and you try to guess by looking at them which and which would go together… Oh, I'm so onto something there !

[Murdoc]

Oh… Man…*Cupid, the game... of Love.

That would so be awesome, different arrows for different types of peoples and try to match them together with their personalities... You'd make a believable little park in which people do stuff, they would have invisible stats that draw them towards activities and you try to guess by looking at them which and which would go together… Oh, I'm so onto something there !

I am instantly reminded of this : )

[Ben X]

I want a "cry" button.

But you're only able to use it on level 17...

[BigJKO]

I always liked the idea of putting a gun in the players hand, and then making the player go through a whole game (talking to people, solving crime, detective-style, maybe? or anything else) without ever firing a single bullet. But having that gun in your hand, and the fact that if you click the mouse button once, you pull up the gun, and then once more you'll fire, causing endless amount of chaos around you, most likely resulting in death, would make me so nervous through the whole game.

[Lu]

Have any of you guys played Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth?

Now here is a first person game, where in the first part of the game, you don't have a gun, or anything to defend yourself with. One of the few games that actually managed to get under my skin, as you have these guys chasing you and you're locking and shoving things in front of doors behind you to slow down your pursuers. It was quite scary.

They did lots of interesting things with Call of Cthulhu. Your character would get vertigo when looking down from up high. If he was looking at something gruesome, your vision could go all funky among other things. The character you play isn't all that mentally stable to begin with, so looking at fucked up things for too long might leave him permanently insane and if you're holding a gun, he commits suicide.

Lots of love for that game.