PDA

View Full Version : [Article] "Industry must offer more than violence" (Patrick Redding)



LuckyBide
11-07-2012, 10:49 PM
Full article here:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-07-splinter-cell-dev-has-a-cure-for-violence


Loved the last part of the article !

Jazz117Volkov
11-07-2012, 11:57 PM
Full article here:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-07-splinter-cell-dev-has-a-cure-for-violence


Loved the last part of the article !Indeed. That last part hits the nail on the head.
Just yesterday I picked up a copy of OXM, flipped through several pages before setting it right back down.
The current trend in games nowadays, of being violent, "visceral" and "edgy" is really beginning to bore me.

Giants like Far Cry 3 look good, but I'm fast loosing interest.
I doubt I'll bother picking it up. Not because it looks bad, but because honestly, it looks boring.
Same old stuff, crammed into the same old package, with a fresh coat of paint. And yet, it's supposed to be one of the more "innovative" titles. *sigh

Reminds me, the other day when I was at the cinema. Just before all the movie previews showed, a game trailer popped up. It was Borderlands 2...
The trailer was atrocious; packed with OTT shooting and violence with a really irritating kid doing the narrating. It was all about how explosive and exciting it all was.
My heart sunk a little.

I sure hope Redding and the team can pull off something more impressive than "visceral" and "edgy" violence in Blacklist.

Rea1SamF1sher
11-08-2012, 01:15 AM
Why the hell are they making so much sense when they are talking?
I mean what we mostly(!) saw yet is completely the opposite or appears to be the complete opposite of what Redding is saying.
I agree completely with him.

I guess it's like Tom Clancy said. Unlike Fiction, Reality doesn't have to make sense...

newhenpal
11-08-2012, 01:27 AM
All you really need to know about the article is the headline and the picture that accompanies it. Mr. Sinclair has quite a dry sense of humor.

Redding has always been the one truly affable person who's worked on Conviction & Blacklist, but this article is completely at odds with what he's involved in. So someone who worked on and represented Conviction, a game that focused heavily and thrived on violence, a game that was unapologetic about the increase in levels of "bad assitude" and forced it upon gamers many times is talking about finding ways to make video game violence less discomforting? Uh-huh.

Though Redding speaks of choice being a big factor, he doesn't mention a game's tone and the guiding hand of a developer.

No, you didn't have to go on a massive rampage in San Andreas, but the goofy, over-the-top sandbox game highly encouraged multiple instances of it. It depended on and expected gamers to do this.

No, you didn't have to use M&E much of the time in Convicion, but the ultra-serious, Hollywood game highly encouraged constant use of it. It too depended on the gamer being enamored with it, and had no qualms in reminding him of the presence of both M&E and Sam's propensity for brutal violence.

And I'm certain that you'll never have to call in an airstrike while playing Blacklist. The game will simply have a big ol' button prompt at the top of the screen, reminding you of how uncool you are for not having pressed Back already.

It's nice that Redding isn't talking about summer blockbusters and the joys of bashing virtual skulls in, but this article just comes off as contradictory fluff.

shobhit7777777
11-08-2012, 08:51 AM
Yeah but the thing is we all enjoy the violence. Its one of those taboo things which is off-limits in the real world.....not within everyone's "reach". Just like driving recklessly at super high speeds, jumping around with the grace of a superhuman acrobat or exploring the vast emptiness of space. Would I actually enjoy games which shift the focus from violence and other high octane "violent" activities? Maybe.


My argument would be that the initial feeling of outrage that hits when someone sees that a game enables the player to do something morally questionable because the systems support it, that passes a lot faster because as people look at the game, they become more literate procedurally in what makes the game a game, and what makes it interactive. They start to understand that just like the message says at the beginning of the game, 'interactions are not covered by the rating.' Human beings have the autonomy to go in there and do things that are distasteful or of questionable merit, but they're taking those actions on their own

The above quote is the core of the article. He is talking about people's perception of violence and how it is affected by the way the game shows it/supports it. Ultimately it comes down to what the game allows you to do and what the player chooses to do.

This is the reason behind people's different versions of Sam. Some calling him a ruthless brute and the others maintaining that he is the same Sam Fisher since player actions cannot be considered canon.

CamberGreber
11-08-2012, 11:45 AM
I seriously hope and Pray that this in the end will reflect the true Nature of Blacklist.....fingers crossed.

mudsak
11-08-2012, 03:40 PM
Why the hell are they making so much sense when they are talking?
I mean what we mostly(!) saw yet is completely the opposite or appears to be the complete opposite of what Redding is saying.
I agree completely with him.

I guess it's like Tom Clancy said. Unlike Fiction, Reality doesn't have to make sense...

My sentiments exactly... When this guy speaks in an interview his words are generally spot on.

But then the content we see for Blacklist seems to be very contradictary...

" We need to present more than just violence " ... "here, play this torturing mini-game in between killing your way through all these bad guys."

Interrogations are a perfect example of a part of Blacklist that was made unnecessarily brutal. Interrogations in the legacy games where pretty docile, and always provided more information that tied into the storyline of the game.

Fast fwd to Blacklist... the information/story line part is still there, but now you have to twist your knife into someone to get that information. Some how I imagine all the humor that was present in the interrogations of the previous games will be lost :nonchalance:.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-08-2012, 03:53 PM
My sentiments exactly... When this guy speaks in an interview his words are generally spot on.

But then the content we see for Blacklist seems to be very contradictary...

" We need to present more than just violence " ... "here, play this torturing mini-game in between killing your way through all these bad guys."

Exactly.

And shobbit777777, I wouldn't agree that we all enjoy the violence.

Don't be projecting onto other people.

Just take CoastalGirl as an example. She can't stand it.
I can't say I particularly enjoy violence either.

I do THOROUGHLY enjoy the tactical aspect of using stealth to remove pieces from play, but I could do without the violence porn moves that show Sam cracking skulls, bashing teeth etc..

And I could REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY (really) do without those pointless, gameplay-less interrogations that are there for no other reason than to push violence into the game and let the developers say "Look how edgy we are".

After the B&W stealth mechanic in the last game, they were the worst idea the series has had.

BoBwUzHeRe1138
11-08-2012, 06:54 PM
Yeah, I like violence depending on the situation.

I love the violence in the AC series. However, with all the new abilities given in ACIII, I've been so much more stealthy. Using non-lethal attacks, corner takedowns which are oh so fantastic and make me only hope that Blacklist has even better corner takedowns, etc.

In the last few AC games I haven't used nearly as much stealth.

As for SC -- I dislike violence especially when forced. SAR managed to have realistic moments, most of which could be ghosted anyway which was fine but if I do not wish to engage the enemy, I hate when it's forced. Hence why the torture scene is awful. I don't want to be a party to (virtual) torture. Torture isn't even a good way to retrieve intel so if they were ACTUALLY going for that realistic, this-is-what-our-troops-have-to-do and not just going for shock and awe, then they wouldn't even have it! The interrogations from Legacy SC's were more realistic as he simply persuades them based on what he thinks they'll respond to; a threat with the knife, acting like he's on their team, some pressure on their arm that could snap it, etc. He never goes that far because you really don't need to. The thing that would be cool is that in Legacy interrogations, they always mention things like Sam will say "and yet I see your hand inching for your pistol" and the guy isn't doing anything, or Sam says he'll just break the guy's arm and starts putting pressure and the guard starts going "ow, ow, ow okay okay okay!" -- I wouldn't mind seeing those actions. So like when you grab an enemy and you can interrogate them and begin it, just like the classic type, you can see their hand slide to their pistol and then Sam putting pressure on the guy's arm to get the guard to stop.

Jazz117Volkov
11-08-2012, 08:04 PM
@ Shobhit
I don't think violence, as a substance, or our inclinational, albeit virtual enjoyment of violence is the issue here. I mean, if you have trouble watching polygons sprawl, then just maybe gaming isn't for you. That said, I don't, have never, and will never play games because I enjoy violence. (that's bass ackwards)

Many good games focus heavily on violence, and we enjoy them, BUT the gameplay is split down the middle; one half is the player killing the enemy, the other half is the player avoiding death.
An excellent example of this would be Gears of War, especially the original. Or perhaps Ninja Gaiden 2. It's immensely satisfying to cleave the limb of a demonic ninja, but only because it's a reward. If the violence was triggered by a "continue button" (for example: "Press B to Interrogate") you'd hit the eject button inside of 60 seconds.

Same deal with Hitman. Great game? Check. Violent? Check. Eligible for scrutiny in this discussion? Nuh-uh.
The game is built from the ground up around risk/reward. In many ways, Hitman games are a player's search for perfection.

When a game forgoes the risk, it also forgoes the reward. Ala SC Conviction's single-player story.
A (linear) map that, in some cases forces you to (press a button and watch Sam) kill several NPCs.
And obviously the interrogation sequences. They literally have you smashing the living sh!t out of a helpless NPC with no greater effort than pressing a button. There's no risk/reward system; it's blatant gore-porn. And even the rest of the game; the "avoiding death" gameplay arch is crippled to near nonexistence. Add to that abusive, delinquent AI, and a one-button kill-streak generator and you've got the gameplay equivalent of masturbation, as appose Hitman's actual sex.

That is where I loose interest, and unfortunately, that is also the path a great many games are headed down.

CoastalGirl
11-09-2012, 06:03 AM
Good article, and Patrick's a smart guy.

But yeah, when it comes to SC, I pretty much hate the violence. I know it's been there for a long time - you can do some nasty things in CT - but it wasn't forced. To me, knowing that I could slit throats if I chose to doesn't compare at all to something like being forced to hit Grim. At that point, Sam's personality and morality were completely out of my hands, and when he did things that I would have never had him do, I basically checked out (and headed over to the wonderland that is D-Ops).

shobhit7777777
11-09-2012, 08:55 AM
Exactly.

And shobbit777777, I wouldn't agree that we all enjoy the violence.

Don't be projecting onto other people.

Just take CoastalGirl as an example. She can't stand it.
I can't say I particularly enjoy violence either.

I do THOROUGHLY enjoy the tactical aspect of using stealth to remove pieces from play, but I could do without the violence porn moves that show Sam cracking skulls, bashing teeth etc..

And I could REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY (really) do without those pointless, gameplay-less interrogations that are there for no other reason than to push violence into the game and let the developers say "Look how edgy we are".

After the B&W stealth mechanic in the last game, they were the worst idea the series has had.

My apologies...I didn't mean to make a sweeping statement. Nevertheless my statement still stands....you do enjoy it for the "tactical" challenge it presents right? Something which is not ordinarily an attainable thing in your life...unless you're a SEAL or Batman or a super cereal airsofter


Good article, and Patrick's a smart guy.

But yeah, when it comes to SC, I pretty much hate the violence. I know it's been there for a long time - you can do some nasty things in CT - but it wasn't forced. To me, knowing that I could slit throats if I chose to doesn't compare at all to something like being forced to hit Grim. At that point, Sam's personality and morality were completely out of my hands, and when he did things that I would have never had him do, I basically checked out (and headed over to the wonderland that is D-Ops).

Thats exactly what Redding talked about.....the forced viewing of violence for the sake of it versus violence initiated via player choice. And I agree.


@Jazz

I don't think violence, as a substance, or our inclinational, albeit virtual enjoyment of violence is the issue here. I mean, if you have trouble watching polygons sprawl, then just maybe gaming isn't for you. That said, I don't, have never, and will never play games because I enjoy violence. (that's bass ackwards)

I do enjoy the violence...its not my primary motivational factor for playing a game but it certainly makes the experience more engaging.


And obviously the interrogation sequences. They literally have you smashing the living sh!t out of a helpless NPC with no greater effort than pressing a button. There's no risk/reward system; it's blatant gore-porn

True

I feel that qualities like ruthlessness, brutality and aggression can also be shown through more understated and subtle mediums.....dialogue, body language, facial and vocal expression. Chaos Theory's "Don't make me cut your throat and look for words" threat was extremely intimidating without the associated act actually being performed.

Does anyone recall the infamous Casino Royale interrogation/torture scene? Where Craig is buck naked, tied to a chair and having his jewels being attacked by a crazy Albanian prodigy? The violence there is all "off screen" (for obvious reasons) but you actually feel despair and fear thanks to Craig's expressions as he goes from cocky to realizing that he is going to die a horrible death. Le Chifre simple states in a very matter-of-fact voice about the results of such a beating.
Its not gory, its not overtly violent...but the way its been set up, shot and acted is what gives it impact.....it helps that the normally infallible Bond is seen at his most vulnerable.

IDK but SCB really needs to explore their portrayal of violence and its application if they are hellbent on making it a central narrative theme.

MerriIl
11-09-2012, 09:06 AM
Good article, and Patrick's a smart guy.

But yeah, when it comes to SC, I pretty much hate the violence. I know it's been there for a long time - you can do some nasty things in CT - but it wasn't forced. To me, knowing that I could slit throats if I chose to doesn't compare at all to something like being forced to hit Grim. At that point, Sam's personality and morality were completely out of my hands, and when he did things that I would have never had him do, I basically checked out (and headed over to the wonderland that is D-Ops).

Well said.

Jazz117Volkov
11-09-2012, 12:25 PM
@ Shobhit
Exactly. Violence is the side-dish, or icing, as it were. It's there as entertaining visual feedback.
But again, when the experience boils down to nothing more than those gory extravaganzas, linked together with "continue" prompts, the game looses it's identity and becomes something a lot less.

I feel that qualities like ruthlessness, brutality and aggression can also be shown through more understated and subtle mediums.....dialogue, body language, facial and vocal expression. Chaos Theory's "Don't make me cut your throat and look for words" threat was extremely intimidating without the associated act actually being performed.Oh yes, how I would love a return of the mindfcuking.

Good call on the Bond torture scene. That was brutal.
A key factor was how Craig reacted to the pain. Typically the action hero just does a lot of snarling and brooding in such scenes (look at the interrogation in Rambo2)
But here Bond was in pain, and it showed. You could see the effects of the torture, as appose to the torture itself. Much like a good physiological thriller will show you a slither of an arm or fingertips as appose to the whole person. It's all about manipulating the viewers mind in such a way that their own subjectivity interprets the materiel in the worst possible way.
Sure, it doesn't have the same pop as someone's face breaking a urinal, but the lasting affects are much stronger.


..SCB really needs to explore their portrayal of violence and its application if they are hellbent on making it a central narrative theme.Couldn't agree more.

@ CoastalGirl
I know what you mean. Conviction severed my connection to Sam on so many levels.
Probably why Ironside's departure hasn't bothered me much.
I'm quite keen to experience the character's rebirth. Here's hoping they don't plough it up again.

Knot3D
11-09-2012, 01:18 PM
Couldn't agree more.

If they allow the player to dish out violence THAT severe ( in gameplay time), I think should apply some karma and have retributions ( consequences ) upon the player, just as severe.

shobhit7777777
11-09-2012, 02:43 PM
If they allow the player to dish out violence THAT severe ( in gameplay time), I think should apply some karma and have retributions ( consequences ) upon the player, just as severe.

No

No moral handholding or policing....Dishonored sucked a little because of it. I'll be really honest and say that exploring the concept of taking lives and it's effect via a video game is an exercise in futility and redundancy....the kill/don't kill morality is archaic, cliched and should give way to higher and more relevant concepts IMO

Knot3D
11-09-2012, 02:49 PM
No

No moral handholding or policing....Dishonored sucked a little because of it. I'll be really honest and say that exploring the concept of taking lives and it's effect via a video game is an exercise in futility and redundancy....the kill/don't kill morality is archaic, cliched and should give way to higher and more relevant concepts IMO I don't think you even know what I meant..

sgg847
11-09-2012, 03:47 PM
No
kill/don't kill morality is archaic, cliched and should give way to higher and more relevant concepts IMO
The first relevant post in this stupid thread. I would make a skip button instead of watching the same cutscene with useless moving a stick.

shobhit7777777
11-09-2012, 08:30 PM
I don't think you even know what I meant..

LOL quite possible Knot....soon as I read retribution I instantly thought of Dishonored. I may have misunderstood you but I still stand by what I said. Perhaps if you were to elaborate....

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-09-2012, 08:45 PM
No

No moral handholding or policing....Dishonored sucked a little because of it. I'll be really honest and say that exploring the concept of taking lives and it's effect via a video game is an exercise in futility and redundancy....the kill/don't kill morality is archaic, cliched and should give way to higher and more relevant concepts IMO

Wot wot?

What moral policing did Dishonored have?

I just saw a very simple system: more bodies = more rats = more plague = more weepers.

The whole difference in ending is relatively obvious too.

Your actions are projected onto Corvo. If you're a man that kills to achieve his goals and you're left guiding the new Empress, then it's fairly obvious things would turn out a little darker.

And what other concepts are there to explore in games like Splinter Cell?
The whole story concept has always been focussed on your actions on the path of war.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-09-2012, 08:52 PM
And I actually think it's genius that more killing leads to more things to kill.

Surely if you're rolling through the game like a gangbuster, you'd want as much stuff to slaughter as possible??

Knot3D
11-09-2012, 09:14 PM
LOL quite possible Knot....soon as I read retribution I instantly thought of Dishonored. I may have misunderstood you but I still stand by what I said. Perhaps if you were to elaborate.... Indeed, my post did not reference Dishonored or any otther game for that matter.

This is certainly NOT about a severity regulator/ violence cap as you fear it. The gameplay system as constructed in Blacklist, providing the means to KIM or whatever methods, is above all, a system.
What I mean is : that - just like in real life - what goes around comes around - should apply to ingame violence in the context of Splinter Cell Blacklist.

This means it should be able to emulate a CAUSE & EFFECT subsystem, as real life basically confronts us with on daily basis. Dish out severe violence as a player, and you should face
similar increase in tactical violence from enemy forces. If possible, more severe player violence could also resonate into terrorist actions becoming more severe ( the Blacklist adjusting itself to YOUR player induced actions ).

Finally, I still do think violence should NOT be a pillar of the Blacklist game ; because it never has been, within the franchise. It is only a means to and end, a door in the structure, but not the foundation.
I'm glad to see Patrick Redding thinks likewise and he has some real influence onto the game.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
11-09-2012, 09:20 PM
Spot on there, Knot!

shobhit7777777
11-09-2012, 09:24 PM
Wot wot?

What moral policing did Dishonored have?
I just saw a very simple system: more bodies = more rats = more plague = more weepers.
The whole difference in ending is relatively obvious too.
Your actions are projected onto Corvo. If you're a man that kills to achieve his goals and you're left guiding the new Empress, then it's fairly obvious things would turn out a little darker.
r.

Lethal kills=weepers=zombies=me having to slay them or avoid them

Add to that the "Dark" (Bad) ending being a result of a sneaky yet lethal playstyle and you have the player (Me) intrinsically gunning for the good ending by curbing a preferred playstyle and experimentation.
And am I the only one that felt the "Non Lethal" alternatives were worse than a simple throat slice? A lifetime of mute hard labour? Yeesh.

Deus Ex did the same....a massive bonus for LTL means. Thankfully it was too smart to pass judgement on your playstyle by keeping any policing away from the narrative.



And what other concepts are there to explore in games like Splinter Cell?
The whole story concept has always been focussed on your actions on the path of war

I quote, "Wot Wot"?!?!??!

The game can easily delve into geo-political issues and hypocritical policy through a closer examination of the Fifth freedom, Sam questioning his objectives and the concept of a machiavellian Nation-State...subverting the idea of liberty and freedom to further national goals.

shobhit7777777
11-09-2012, 09:27 PM
Indeed, my post did not reference Dishonored or any otther game for that matter.

This is certainly NOT about a severity regulator/ violence cap as you fear it. The gameplay system as constructed in Blacklist, providing the means to KIM or whatever methods, is above all, a system.
What I mean is : that - just like in real life - what goes around comes around - should apply to ingame violence in the context of Splinter Cell Blacklist.

This means it should be able to emulate a CAUSE & EFFECT subsystem, as real life basically confronts us with on daily basis. Dish out severe violence as a player, and you should face
similar increase in tactical violence from enemy forces. If possible, more severe player violence could also resonate into terrorist actions becoming more severe ( the Blacklist adjusting itself to YOUR player induced actions ).

Finally, I still do think violence should NOT be a pillar of the Blacklist game ; because it never has been, within the franchise. It is only a means to and end, a door in the structure, but not the foundation.
I'm glad to see Patrick Redding thinks likewise and he has some real influence onto the game.

****ing A!

I love it.

Thats a brilliant idea and a brings on a whole new meaning to the narrative-gameplay interconnection. Then again, it would be sorta like Dishonored where a more "violent" player may not want such interdependence as a heightened terrorist reaction is, in the game's context, a sign of failure...right?

shobhit7777777
11-09-2012, 09:30 PM
Oh and and since we are on the topic of violence, I present to you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr9WuDcv74o

MerriIl
11-10-2012, 03:26 AM
Oh and and since we are on the topic of violence, I present to you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr9WuDcv74o

One of those ruskies can KICK! Haha, holy ****e!

sgg847
11-10-2012, 11:32 AM
Ha, I remember this show. Fake but funny.

KenTWOu
11-10-2012, 12:02 PM
What moral policing did Dishonored have?
IMHO Dishonored should absolutely hide its chaos system from the player. Like Metro 2033 did and was praised for that. For example, check this article (http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/games/blogs/screenplay/your-turn-in-game-morality-20120614-20b5e.html).

As a result we get typical reaction (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.276622-Morality-Matters?page=2) from a player: I wonder if anyone knew that Metro 2033 had a morality system? There's not a single mention of it. Turns out, throughout the game there's things you can do - like helping a beggar out or a little street urchin - that will in fact cause you to get a different version of the ending. Pretty crazy. I didn't find out until after I beat the game and was looking at a guide, and I kind of went... huh?? What ending are they talking about?!

Instead Dishonored shows different tips during loading screens, shows tutorial explanation and shows overall chaos level after every mission.

Knot3D
11-10-2012, 01:34 PM
****ing A!

I love it.

Thats a brilliant idea and a brings on a whole new meaning to the narrative-gameplay interconnection. Then again, it would be sorta like Dishonored where a more "violent" player may not want such interdependence as a heightened terrorist reaction is, in the game's context, a sign of failure...right?Just like in real life, a severe effect of a severe means for a cause might be the thing you choose, for the sake of the mission goal.

Let's say you're ploughing through a level with a ruthless karambit.

In reallife, word would spread about that, sooner or later. In reallife, you can expect some counter-nastiness; ingame, this might translate to more ruthless enemies - which takes you longer to health regen, not take away gameplay features - and to top it off, as you get to the US embassy from which you're supposed to rescue Blacklist captives, you discover they've been equally mutilated with knives as you mutilated Blacklist guys. So you might have saved your US embassy guys, but they might be missing some body parts......

So, that's not governing/capping violence in a game ; instead, it's applying "what goes around comes around" ingame , just like it happens in real life :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ROU950LvNzc#t=53 s

SolidSage
11-10-2012, 09:57 PM
Morality in video games associated with play style is redundant. It's a game, I buy it to play not to invite moral commentary from the Developers about 'how' I play. Sure, have the game adjust it's challenge, response and difficulty to overt actions but if you really don't want me to kill anyone you should be making a Sims game, not a game about an operator with a history of service in conflict, outfitted with all the weapons of war that you can imagine along with the skills to use them.

And then after setting the stage for that option for violence you want to design the game in such a way that it tells me I'm a bad boy for opting in?

While discussion about real violence and it's portrayal is relevant, taking that discussion into the realm of video games is a disconnect. It's not real, it doesn't lead to real violence and it isn't even an accurate portrayal of real violence or the kind of reasons a video game player would encounter as a need for the choice to do it.
We might as well discuss how inappropriate it is to let the main character in San Andreas eat at Burger Shot too often, setting a terrible example for the healthy nutritonal lifestyles we should all be morally obliged to live.

It is quite simply nothing more than pressing buttons and watching the images created. No bearing or relevance in the real world whatsoever.



In fact, if I am to experience karma from killing terrorists other players should experience karma for not killing them when they have the chance. Maybe that random Tango goes on to rise through the ranks and then bomb's a mall or a school or a trade center and thousands of lives are lost because the passive player didn't eliminate a threat when he had the chance.


Build it for choice and tell the story you want but don't think it's your place to assume the responsibility for educating me on morals. You're not my Dad.

Knot3D
11-10-2012, 11:13 PM
Again... the point is not about morality nor about the game developer patronizing the players.
How can anyone not see that heheh..... It's simply just about cause & effect, in a game.

Sure, games are there to entertain, but games without proper cause & effect fail at being a good game.
It's also a major apples to oranges, to compare the causality of the Splinter Cell context to any sandbox
game, but I'm sure that even in those games, an extreme action will trigger an extreme reaction.

Take note, Redding never told anyone to play the game as a pacifist. Shooting someone is, in itself
already a violent act.

This article is merely developer self-reflection about what kind of violence gamut they'll provide the player with,
and how the internal logic of the game should react to those actions accordingly. Mistaking this for the developer
playing morality police, is of course a big fallacy.

SolidSage
11-10-2012, 11:48 PM
No, the article is about not forcing the player into scenarios that are full of indulgent violent gore action that may be morally reprehensible for some. Redding is suggesting, rightfully so, that games shouldn't force those moments, or moments like them, but rather offer the choice to participate or avoid them. So that, in turn, moral objectifiers won't get unhinged about how games are encouraging such a following for violent gore fests when all they see in marketing campaigns IS that morally questionable content.

The first paragraph specifically mentions "the shocking violence".

For someone who loves to point out how others don't comprehend the content you sure do an effective job of it yourself.

Here's another quote or two from the article that isn't about morality:
"As to how the industry can minimize the outcry over violence in games,"

"My argument would be that the initial feeling of outrage that hits when someone sees that a game enables the player to do something morally questionable..."

"Beyond that, Redding suggested that cultural concern over violence in games could also be effectively addressed by making games that aren't so reliant on it."


To clarify; for anyone who has been paying attention to the ongoing discussion about morality in video games, that has been a continual conversation point of this forum, it should be apparent that this article is part of it.

Maxime has stated that while he thinks games should offer questions on morality, he doesn't think they should stand in judgement on the players choices. Just offer them and stimulate thought.
Patrick is suggesting that these morally questionable moments offer full choice, for avoidance or participation. So players who have no desire to ingest that kind of violent gore don't have to.

These are not the Developers I am referencing when I say, it is not the Developers role to supply me with a game where violence is the focus, whether it be participation or the avoidance of it, and then assume the responsibility of educating me on the choices I am 'supposed' to make.

The industry should not buckle to intolerant perspectives.
Don't cram it down their throats and invite the over analyzing, but don't try to appease their moral sensibilities by assuming the role of moral adjudicators.

Knot3D
11-11-2012, 12:59 AM
For someone who loves to point out how others don't comprehend the content you sure do an effective job of it yourself. Really, save it. Because it just doesn't hit home.

Why ?

Because my 2nd post in this thread was a response to shobhit's misinterpretation of my initial post, as he mistook it for a violence cap or violence condemning factor within the game.
I succesfully explained to him how that is not the case.

Subsequently, I simply elaborated my 1st post in a 3rd post; all of which do not clash nor show any incomprehension on my part, of Redding's statements in that article.
But alright, let's break it down:

- first, Redding addresses the causes of being picked out by social commentators: for example, pointing out visual fidelity of said violence and narrative forced violence
- he then presents suggestions on how to make the player accountable for his actions, not the game nor its rating.
- his final suggestion simply advises a wider spectrum of games to alleviate demonization of games as a medium

However, he does state the following, which indeed does connect with the principle of cause & effect as I pointed out in earlier posts :
"It'll be more about the decisions, the choice of, 'Do I believe that ethically, the situation is bad enough for me to do something really terrible to this person in order to get a certain game result?'"

This clearly indicates, Redding believes in proper internal logic in a game ; an interactively generated game scenario, in which player choice is a free choice, but not without context. Whether it's the chicken or the egg doesn't matter. Someone - whether it's the player or the game - generated a violent scenario. Freedom's given to the player to react proportionally or disproportionally to said violence. But any Splinter Cell game which would take itself a little tiny bit seriously would and should then react accordingly to the player, just as in real life, outrageous violence, evokes some serious retribution.

SolidSage
11-11-2012, 01:11 AM
How can anyone not see that heheh..... It's simply just about cause & effect, in a game.


Mistaking this for the developer playing morality police, is of course a big fallacy.

No, you save it.

And don't unblock me from your read list that you assured me you would add me to, after you made such a big point of stimulating argument before and then attempted to get me banned over responding in kind to it.

These statements of yours that level inflammatory personal comments aimed at identifying lacks of understanding are false, pretentious and hypocritical.

Knot3D
11-11-2012, 01:25 AM
No no no.

You started this in your post #31 by sneakily locking into my viewpoint as expressed in my earlier posts in this thread. Stating how anyone cannot see something or stating
that someone is making a fallacy are of course no personal insults. Calling my statement, quote: "pretentious and hypocritical", is.

( also, I said you were getting close to getting on my ignore list. But of course.. it's my freedom of CHOICE to actually do that or not )

Jazz117Volkov
11-11-2012, 01:52 AM
Sage, what Knot is really trying to say is, NO U.
Knot, what Sage is really trying to say is, NO U.

You're welcome.
Icecreams are on me.

Rea1SamF1sher
11-11-2012, 01:57 AM
Wasn't the "what goes around comes around" principal always in the Splinter Cell games?
You decide how to tackle the situation and you always got a proper reaction triggered by your actions.
Having freedom on one side but also have proper "reactions/consequences" on the other side.

Knot3D
11-11-2012, 01:58 AM
Sage, what Knot is really trying to say is, NO U.
Knot, what Sage is really trying to say is, NO U.

You're welcome.
Icecreams are on me.

Cheers !

But I think... the convo between Shobhit and me, pretty much clarified that no one in this thread ( not even me ) was proposing an ingame violence regulator mechanic or some kind of developer induced patronizing narrative.

....then page 4 started...

Knot3D
11-11-2012, 02:01 AM
Wasn't the "what goes around comes around" principal always in the Splinter Cell games?
You decide how to tackle the situation and you always got a proper reaction triggered by your actions.
Having freedom on one side but also have proper "reactions/consequences"on the other side.

Well, I think the closest Splinter Cell ever got to that, were the 3 tier enemy armaments in Pandora Tomorrow. Of course,
the player had a limited range of actions, so the out of bound factor there, was simply getting noticed by something as a missed shot.

SolidSage
11-11-2012, 02:07 AM
What I'm really trying to say is that if you start out every discussion with me with a "you didn't understand", or "you misunderstood" or basically "you're opinion is wrong BECAUSE you don't comprehend", I DO see it as a personal insult and a discredit to the purpose of discussion as a whole.
It's a sneaky and obtuse way of personally attacking someone. Likely in an effort to draw out more clearly identifiable and similar responses that can then get used in an effort to have accounts closed...for whatever reason that stimulated the dislike in the first place.

As I pointed out in post #33, the article is clearly referencing the morality associated with violence in video games that I initially offered perspective on in post #31.


While I appreciate your effort to make light of the discourse Jazz, it goes a little deeper than that when a Member establishes a sustained trend of negative methodology in their interaction with me


I suppose this is the statement where I sneakily caused offense;

In fact, if I am to experience karma from killing terrorists other players should experience karma for not killing them when they have the chance. Maybe that random Tango goes on to rise through the ranks and then bomb's a mall or a school or a trade center and thousands of lives are lost because the passive player didn't eliminate a threat when he had the chance.

Oddly enough, I feel that it supports the concept of deeper cause and effect game play that was being discussed.


I came to the conclusion of labeling Knots 'statements' as Pretentious due to them always being preceded by the "YOU don't understand" variations, and then Hypocritical because it's apparent that there was misunderstanding on his part when he said the article "wasn't about morality".

Knot3D
11-11-2012, 02:25 AM
What I'm really trying to say is that if you start out every discussion with me with a "you didn't understand", or "you misunderstood" or basically "you're opinion is wrong BECAUSE you don't comprehend", I DO see it as a personal insult and a discredit to the purpose of discussion as a whole.

I am sorry if you perceive it that way but that is not the case.

However, I think I am right to say all convo's on page 3 pretty much made it very obvious, that none of us propose a violence regulating/condemning game mechanic.
Shobhit also clearly understood my point about the principle of cause and effect, being a good foundation for internal logic in game structures, as he expressed in his posts on page 3.

Then your post came and it read as if me or anyone else was suggesting a moralizing game.


and then Hypocritical because it's apparent that there was misunderstanding on his part when he said the article "wasn't about morality".
No, you call me hypocritical for supposedly misunderstanding the article, which is not the case. The article is about perception of media, individual choice and accountability ( it only refers to a goal of omitting a moralizing ingame factor in service of that free player choice ).

SolidSage
11-11-2012, 03:06 AM
My initial statement was in reference to the article and the general concern that outside viewers have of the overly violent presentation of some titles. The continuing concern and outrage that certain entities use as material for the war on violence in video games.
It was a blanket statement directed at the Developer communities that believe they should adopt some sort of moral high ground as it relates to informing the player about the bad moral choices they are making in the games.

The thread isn't about you Knot, nor was my initial comment.
The karma statement was pointing out that a broad view of implications should be considered for cause and effect. Especially in the role of combat operations. We should see that being overly vindictive has repercussions, as does not monopolizing on opportunity when it presents itself. Therby maintaining the moral ambiguity that is sensible for a Producer offering content that allows for such extremes.

Previous articles that we have all read identify how Maxime himself doesn't approve of the 'player judgement' factor in games, but approves of 'moral questions'.


This excerpt is another example of how the article really is commenting on the morality of violence in video games.

"My argument would be that the initial feeling of outrage that hits when someone sees that a game enables the player to do something morally questionable because the systems support it, that passes a lot faster because as people look at the game, they become more literate procedurally in what makes the game a game, and what makes it interactive. They start to understand that just like the message says at the beginning of the game, 'interactions are not covered by the rating.' Human beings have the autonomy to go in there and do things that are distasteful or of questionable merit, but they're taking those actions on their own."

Beyond that, Redding suggested that cultural concern over violence in games could also be effectively addressed by making games that aren't so reliant on it."


I have not suggested that I think anyone thinks there should be a cap on the available violence in a game. What I have suggested is that it is not the place of a Developer to build a game that affords such opportunities, to then build in a morality gauge that identifies me/anyone as making bad moral choices.
Take Mass Effect (as I understand it), you can pursue dark or light paths/decisions and enjoy alternate cinematics that relate to them, but there isn't a mechanical punishment for choosing one over the other.

A game is a toy, if I smash it to pieces in some way, that is a violent kind of action but it has no moral consequence because it is a toy designed to be played with as the purchaser chooses.
Sure if I took a video game and used it as a projectile to hurt someone there would be sense in judging that moral decision, but there is no sense in judging the decisions made within the confines of the artificial digital playground.
I don't believe that those judgements carry any real weight, much in the same way that I don't believe the decisions in game are motivated by morals as much as a desire to engage in and master the complete set of tools and available paths to success that are offered.


Interestingly enough, both of Maxime and Patrick's opinion seem to run somewhat contrary to the inclusion of the interrogation sequences that we have seen in Blacklist.
A choice IS offered but it's between two significantly morally questionable violent paths, and this sequence has been used extensively in the marketing to this point. It doesn't really ask the player "am I making a bad choice" as much as "which bad choice should I make" (leave to bleed out after torture or end suffering).
I think that this is something Patrick is referring to when he says that bad ethical choices shouldn't be front and center in a cinematic but instead reserved for the systemic portions of the game.

Perhaps that will be the case and it can be bypassed altogether but I doubt it.

shobhit7777777
11-11-2012, 08:54 AM
In fact, if I am to experience karma from killing terrorists other players should experience karma for not killing them when they have the chance. Maybe that random Tango goes on to rise through the ranks and then bomb's a mall or a school or a trade center and thousands of lives are lost because the passive player didn't eliminate a threat when he had the chance.


Interesting

I would support this.

Taking a leader out will definitely hamper certain operational aspects and failing to do so might have gameplay consequences like organised and motivated guards, better security systems, well armed troops etc.

On the flipside

Assassinating the leader will also lead to widespread chaos, retaliatory attacks and a period of increased violence

The article IMO sheds light on how violence is perceived IN the industry AND outside of it and how it would be a better solution to leave violence as a choice in the player's hands than enforcing it via canonical cutscenes and QTEs

Knot3D
11-11-2012, 01:10 PM
It was a blanket statement directed at the Developer communities that believe they should adopt some sort of moral high ground as it relates to informing the player about the bad moral choices they are making in the games. Yeah, and that's what I pointed out with "accountability". The fact that social pressure is holding developer/publisher accountable for outrageous content despite a rating system on the box.


The thread isn't about you Knot No the thread is not about me, thankfully. However, I think it's right to say all thread contributors came to a sort of consensus by page 3 and with this, it marked a clear flow of this thread.



nor was my initial comment. Thanks for clarifying, if that's truly not what you meant. It just seemed as if you somehow didn't register this consensus as established by all of us on the previous pages and commented on my post about causality. Again, I appreciate the clarification on that.



A game is a toy, if I smash it to pieces in some way, that is a violent kind of action but it has no moral consequence because it is a toy designed to be played with as the purchaser chooses. Sure ? I don't think you can equate play style with sheer destruction. Besides, going rampant in a videogame isn't the same as destroying the actual game disc, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.

You may want to think about your initial motivation why you smashed the toy in the first place btw. My personal opinion is, that a toy is also a produced item. Someone put in energy and money into producing it, I spent money buying it. If I'd smash it for no appearant reason, I may want to question myself a bit.

I think that is what Redding alludes to as well ; you may have the player freedom of choice in the game, but in the end you answer to yourself for chosen actions.


About the part where you stated that there might be a game situation in which the terrorist might bomb a school/trade center because the player was playing passive; I don't think that applies here, because every player is already going to play the game with the goal of making the mission a succes; meaning, securing the safety of the ones to protect, and this can always be achieved in every game by means of employing the necessary amount of violence, not an disproportionally illogical amount of violence in that same context. In short, you can achieve mission goals by merely employing standard actions, nothing passive about that at all.

The "passive" player doesn't really exist, that would only be the kind of person who would purposely screw up mission goals.

SolidSage
11-11-2012, 09:04 PM
Yeah, and that's what I pointed out with "accountability". The fact that social pressure is holding developer/publisher accountable for outrageous content despite a rating system on the box.
And that's what I think Patrick is saying can be avoided by not using such gratuitous violence on the label so to speak.


Again, I appreciate the clarification on that.
My rant, if you like, was about the presumptions of general external viewers of the game medium, and how that leads to an issue where game Developers are straying into a territory where they feel they have to parent us in some way to oblige and pacify the cultural outrage.
I appreciate that regardless of where Blacklist sits in all of this, a couple of the main guys are saying the right thing. Which is it's not their job to manage our perspectives and they can avoid the cultural concern by not putting images of it on blimps and flying it over churches. (exaggerated).

I did comment on the cause and effect but I didn't think I was offensive, just advocating no morally better path in terms of reward from the game. So we can avoid a somewhat mandatory ethical play style.



Sure ? I don't think you can equate play style with sheer destruction. Besides, going rampant in a videogame isn't the same as destroying the actual game disc, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.
Well if it's in a fit of rage it may require reflection about anger issues but even then, if it's a solo event I don't think it has moral repercussions. But maybe it was smashed to create a piece of art. It doesn't matter, it wasn't a strong example.
But as far as Apples and Oranges I have to say, I really don't feel that the meaning is fully conveyed, whenever this phrase is used, not just here.
Because Apples and Oranges are VERY similar. Both grow on trees, they are both round, fruit, have seeds and skins, juices, come in a variety of similar sizes. I mean the major differences are taste, color and probably the ability to grow in different climates but overall, I think they are really quite alike.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "it's like comparing Apples and Car mufflers"?

Maybe some times the point is that things are quite similar with minor differences in which case I would think it fitting.



I think that is what Redding alludes to as well ; you may have the player freedom of choice in the game, but in the end you answer to yourself for chosen actions.
Yes and I feel, passionately at times, that this is how it should be. In a World where tolerance and freedoms are being pursued all the time I find it so ridiculous that some of the champions of those freedoms are so hypocritical and biased when viewing other facets of choice and personal pursuit of happiness.
Not talking about you.



About the part where you stated that there might be a game situation in which the terrorist might bomb a school/trade center because the player was playing passive; I don't think that applies here, because every player is already going to play the game with the goal of making the mission a succes; meaning, securing the safety of the ones to protect, and this can always be achieved in every game by means of employing the necessary amount of violence, not an disproportionally illogical amount of violence in that same context. In short, you can achieve mission goals by merely employing standard actions, nothing passive about that at all.
This makes sense, but when I say passive player I am talking in the context of choosing (or not) of the over the top violent path, not not doing anything at all. It is clear that a player who doesn't kill in an SC game when possible is still actively participating in the game. Certainly they are not passive in that regard, in fact a lot of the time they are applying more effort than players who go on kill sprees. It's generally easier to kill than stealth avoid in the later games (CT included). And that will hopefully find a better balance. Neither being easier but both challenges requiring a higher amount of skill at the extremes.

What I did mean is the player who doesn't engage in the OTT interrogations, or attempts to sneak past the guard in a scenario similar to the latest image we have, may also be making a moral choice in a situation that could lead to a negative ramification later on. Of course it would be hard to identify which guys were going to cause this result but I think that with the face recognition technology (the concept anyway) we have seen, wouldn't it add to the game to have that 'deck of cards' in Sam's OPSAT, that had the intel on certain individuals throughout the game who had resumes of evil (so to speak)?
Then we could add side objectives/goals to the game, address some morality versus necessity issues.
I know this might be seen as forcing the hand of the no kill players in a way but I think it would really just afford an even weighted perspective on morality. It wouldn't have to result in thousands of deaths all the time, it could just be simple after action reports stating that a network arms dealer got away, or similar repercussions to the one you suggested were visited upon a local village in the mission area after we left. Maybe historical artifacts were destroyed in retaliation for Sam removing their Leader?
It would at least identify that with the kind of organization 4E appears to be now, taking out bad guys IS part of the job. I know we've already been doing it with the main players, I just think that adding it to some more randomly placed AI that's not integral to the main narrative would create more depth and more questioning.

The guard in the dark room with the work light is apparently standing watch in a storage space. Not a task for a high level Tango perhaps. It's likely he doesn't have major intel on primary objectives so passing by and leaving him untouched could be an easier option. Being passive about engagement let's say.
I am suggesting that in certain instances like this, (not too many of course because it would force the player to HAVE to kill everyone [which some times I think is the right course of action in scenarios like these reflected in the real World, leave no enemy standing kind of thing]), it might balance the questions of morality to have a repercussion from the passive choice that doesn't sit well with the general goal. Splinter Cell has raised questions similar to this before.
Referring to your example of having overly liberal application of the karambit result in a retaliation in kind from the tangos, I think it important to make sure that not only those direct and proportional results be focused on. Because at the end of the day we are supposed to be fighting against bad guys. Not all of them of course are motivated by hate and anger or the quest for power but some of them certainly are and it resounds quite loudly in my mind when I experience media that shows the kinder choice end up being the one that bites us in the rear.

If you've ever watched an episode of He-Man you'll understand why I think that guy is a complete flippin maroon. Just kill Skeletor for crying out loud, he's not going to change. How many get hurt because He-Man allows his emotions to stop him from taking the sensible course of action?

Also, as a side note, with a lot of these terrorists (okay Blacklist's enemies may be quite different and have sounder reason and logic for their course), cutting off limbs and stuff is already par for the course. So going in there and being a bit nicer to the enemy doesn't mean they won't cut off someone's head anyway.

I think that repercussions for too much violence are already designed into the game with the alerts and AI response level changes. The more you kill the more you bodies you have to hide etc, it should be harder, the mechanics are there in theory, they just need to be adjusted so that the responses really identify a clearer risk/reward system relative to being overt and reckless, rather than relating to being morally reprehensible.

I have no problem with mission parameters that result in a poor performance reports for too high a body count, or perhaps even a recommendation for a psyche eval due to the carnage and apparent pleasure Sam took by interrogating an extreme amount of AI. Those things would reflect the kind of moral questioning better I think, rather than Grim telling Sam he has turned into some sort of dark deranged animal and he's no longer allowed to use the knife, or a mission failure in these more hot zone kind of scenarios.
It obviously makes sense to have mission failures in civilian populations.

What I really don't want to see is a game taking it's commentary so seriously that it becomes difficult to enjoy going on epic kill sprees and mastering the high combat play. I cannot imagine an Assassin's Creed where I was made to feel morally dirty for enjoying running around and fully embracing the digital carnage that is available when excelling at the use of the combat tools. Similarly, GTA is just fun. Regardless of the fact that the protagonists are criminals with shallow motives, the whole process of flipping the switch on the AI and then trying to overcome it at it's most intense levels is such a gratifying experience.
I don't want the World to tell me that my enjoyment of these intense and skilled based puzzles is stemming from a lack of moral sensibility.
It just isn't true.

TLDR? I don't blame you.

shobhit7777777
11-11-2012, 09:53 PM
Regarding Sage's points on making a morally "high" choice with potentially dangerous ramifications the following scene comes to mind

In Saving Private Ryan there is a scene where Miller's squad attacks an MG 42 nest. In the process they lose a guy. This infuriates the squad and they plan on shooting the gunner who they captured in the Assault. What follows is a gut wrenching scene where the German is pleading for his life with Upham (A company clerk and translator...a greenhorn with 0 combat experience and a very morally strong worldview) is trying to talk them out of shooting the prisoner. Miller relents (Another poignant moment where he talks about his life as a school teacher) and agrees to let the German go free.

Cut to the climax as German troops are attacking a bridge being defended by Miller's squad and Ryan's paratrooper buds. We see Upham cowering behind rubble and a German squad runs by, takes up firing positions and starts firing on the Americans. Upham recognizes one the soldiers as the same guy they let go....and Upham sees him shoot GIs with cold precision. Upham's character arc comes to an end with him capturing the German squad, letting the others go and shooting the German Ex-POW.

Super gray innit

Om4zd
11-11-2012, 10:00 PM
^^ Nice, I too would support that.

Though I wouldn't want the game to become like Mass Effect where major parts of the story are affected because of decisions.

Just the small decisions like killing Dahlia Tahl or letting her live, only to see her try to kill you later are the things I hope, you guys want, and I wish to be in the game.

SCAgent95
11-11-2012, 10:11 PM
Regarding Sage's points on making a morally "high" choice with potentially dangerous ramifications the following scene comes to mind

In Saving Private Ryan there is a scene where Miller's squad attacks an MG 42 nest. In the process they lose a guy. This infuriates the squad and they plan on shooting the gunner who they captured in the Assault. What follows is a gut wrenching scene where the German is pleading for his life with Upham (A company clerk and translator...a greenhorn with 0 combat experience and a very morally strong worldview) is trying to talk them out of shooting the prisoner. Miller relents (Another poignant moment where he talks about his life as a school teacher) and agrees to let the German go free.

Cut to the climax as German troops are attacking a bridge being defended by Miller's squad and Ryan's paratrooper buds. We see Upham cowering behind rubble and a German squad runs by, takes up firing positions and starts firing on the Americans. Upham recognizes one the soldiers as the same guy they let go....and Upham sees him shoot GIs with cold precision. Upham's character arc comes to an end with him capturing the German squad, letting the others go and shooting the German Ex-POW.

Super gray innit

I was watching saving pvt.Ryan yesterday and was thinking the same thing :p. i like the idea, although i would not like having the game focusing a lot on such choices.

SolidSage
11-12-2012, 01:12 AM
Regarding Sage's points on making a morally "high" choice with potentially dangerous ramifications the following scene comes to mind

In Saving Private Ryan there is a scene where Miller's squad attacks an MG 42 nest. In the process they lose a guy. This infuriates the squad and they plan on shooting the gunner who they captured in the Assault. What follows is a gut wrenching scene where the German is pleading for his life with Upham (A company clerk and translator...a greenhorn with 0 combat experience and a very morally strong worldview) is trying to talk them out of shooting the prisoner. Miller relents (Another poignant moment where he talks about his life as a school teacher) and agrees to let the German go free.

Cut to the climax as German troops are attacking a bridge being defended by Miller's squad and Ryan's paratrooper buds. We see Upham cowering behind rubble and a German squad runs by, takes up firing positions and starts firing on the Americans. Upham recognizes one the soldiers as the same guy they let go....and Upham sees him shoot GIs with cold precision. Upham's character arc comes to an end with him capturing the German squad, letting the others go and shooting the German Ex-POW.

Super gray innit

Wasn't that also the German who stuck his bayonet in dude's gut up in the room while wonder boy was peeing his pants on the staircase?

Good example.

I agree with Om4zd that it needs to be in smaller scenarios, and Mateus that we don't the moral thing to become too big or serious an inclusion.
That's kind of where I'm coming from in this. I want it to stay fun, not become another area of life where we have to be "so serious" and concerned with how our image might be tarnished by what others might consider moral apathy when in fact it's just a rollicking good time to drop some ownage on the AI. (oh dear, next I'll be using the Kinect to tell the AI that I just pawned them...sad sad sad) ;)

Knot3D
11-12-2012, 10:09 AM
Of course it would be hard to identify which guys were going to cause this result but I think that with the face recognition technology (the concept anyway) we have seen, wouldn't it add to the game to have that 'deck of cards' in Sam's OPSAT, that had the intel on certain individuals throughout the game who had resumes of evil (so to speak)? Well, I think these wild card individuals would have been on Sam's hitlist from the getgo already, also in the legacy games. Grinko, Masse...( Masse in the PC extra missions ), guys like these. They're just examples from SC SAR, but that doesn't detract from the point.

So, the only ones questionable in terms of risk factor, would be Grinko's driver, Ivan and the guy hiding in the pantry.... then again, neither of those became a liability by mere interaction with Sam, or did they ?

Of course, it wouldn't be really credible imo, to have the KO of any random footsoldier, to cause a serious retribution. Besides, Sam is already going to go into any mission, carefully ID'ing the wildcards on the hitlist. So it's not likely he's gonna mistake a footsoldier for a wildcard imo.

About Shobhit's Private Ryan example: I think we do need to realize that in a game context, this set up would translate in a game as a highly scripted event; because, at the point where they meet again, the movie director has them facing off basically, in an immediate threat situation....which, in a game would give me this scripted event / QTE feeling which imo, is something we definitely want to avoid. This is imo, the point where movies and games need to split ways, and game developers who try to put such movie inspired scenarios into a game, will wind up with scripted event type gameplay.



I did comment on the cause and effect but I didn't think I was offensive, just advocating no morally better path in terms of reward from the game. So we can avoid a somewhat mandatory ethical play style. Again, I would like to reiterate, that is not what I meant, so that wouldn't force the player into a playstyle either.

I meant that a rampage type player would meet rampage style opposition, as the game registers his playstyle. What fun/challenge would there be for this player, if the enemies he's up against don't adjust their counter attacks accordingly ?

In SC games, too many times, the enemies don't adjust to the player either. Heck, even the Splinter Cell's Sam up against in Conviction didn't portray splinter cell tactics either imo. Now, we could explain this by Reed's new policy, but ... it didn't make for a new and interesting gameplay experience, did it ?

Imagine, you're Sam... and within a map, suddenly you notice there's some kind of Kestral/Archer type of dude, who only uses SC sneaking, acrobatics just like Sam, and a knife..and he's after Sam !

sgg847
11-12-2012, 09:13 PM
Industry must offer sex. The owners of Kinect will be happy.

SolidSage
11-13-2012, 01:55 AM
Well, I think these wild card individuals would have been on Sam's hitlist from the getgo already, also in the legacy games. Grinko, Masse...( Masse in the PC extra missions ), guys like these. They're just examples from SC SAR, but that doesn't detract from the point.
I'm suggesting smaller fish, targets of opportunity that the player can remote hack to scan and possibly pair with a card the deck, and then make a choice to eliminate or bypass depending on the Player's assessment of threat, supported by some sort of % field in the OPSAT maybe.
Or the player could of course bypass the targets of opportunity altogether and have some back end database after the campaign is complete, that furnishes text referencing what eliminating or not eliminating these guys led to.
Small commentary, no major play alteration in game (other than quick scan cross reference and decision) minor commentary on morality versus necessity.

Sounds a bit long winded really. But Iike the idea of more secondary objectives within the game. Maybe it doesn't relate to killing all the time and instead feeds into a reason for interrogation that the player has to choose the degree of to achieve an ideal return. Balancing the character profile of the particular tango with types of methods that work best. Maybe SOME dudes really NEED that knife in the shoulder, while others just need San to whisper in their ear...coupled with a neck hug. And then some other scalable variations.



About Shobhit's Private Ryan example: I think we do need to realize that in a game context, this set up would translate in a game as a highly scripted event; because, at the point where they meet again, the movie director has them facing off basically, in an immediate threat situation....which, in a game would give me this scripted event / QTE feeling which imo, is something we definitely want to avoid. This is imo, the point where movies and games need to split ways, and game developers who try to put such movie inspired scenarios into a game, will wind up with scripted event type gameplay.
Yes, the way it plays out in SPR is almost like a secondary story arc. We don't want that.
The basic idea though that our better sensibilities regarding morality, could allow for the player to be emotionally manipulated into a choice that yields negative returns is accurate.



I meant that a rampage type player would meet rampage style opposition, as the game registers his playstyle. What fun/challenge would there be for this player, if the enemies he's up against don't adjust their counter attacks accordingly ?
It's clear we all agree on this method.
I feel the concept is there in part already and has been for a long time with the detection and alert stages. Balancing the type of AI responses proportional to player method is interesting. If the AI has an opportunity to catch Sam off guard by performing a low profile flanking maneuver or similar, they should certainly go that route.
Likewise, Sam running through gangbuster style needs to run into AI in heavily barricaded fire corridors. If the player is telegraphing a reckless approach the AI should employ an effective countermeasure.
If he's using the drone or whatever maybe the enemy should unleash artillery of their own, as if responding to a full scale attack. Start bombing the heck out of the sight, destroying some secondary objectives in the process maybe, or cutting off routes of access by blowing remote mines at tunnel entrances etc.


In SC games, too many times, the enemies don't adjust to the player either. Heck, even the Splinter Cell's Sam up against in Conviction didn't portray splinter cell tactics either imo. Now, we could explain this by Reed's new policy, but ... it didn't make for a new and interesting gameplay experience, did it ?
I do think that Reed bloating the SC ranks with new recruits and rushing them through the program resulted in stealthier shock troops bearing the name of SC's, but not the true skill set. Seems reasonable story wise to me.
I think it was a level up in AI effectiveness and challenge as compared to AI in previous games or even previous levels of SCC. But yes, the challenge remained in the vein of "out shoot/out action" the bad guys.


Imagine, you're Sam... and within a map, suddenly you notice there's some kind of Kestral/Archer type of dude, who only uses SC sneaking, acrobatics just like Sam, and a knife..and he's after Sam !
Sounds great, figure out how to make that work.
In my mind the Hunter Agents should set up in wait for Sam, and do a great job of being hidden. In such a way that a cautious player could locate them (hanging from a ledge in the corner of a room or in cover, waiting to jump out or something) and eliminate them IF they locate, identify, target and shoot first that is. Because that kind of Spy AI should be set up in locations with great field of vision, a mandate to shoot quickly and be deadly accurate.
So the reckless player blundering into a room is going to get head shot and never even locate the killer, even in the death cam (no show of location).

Then of course that AI could also have a setting to tail and observe Sam which would keep us on our toes. And finally an interrogate mandate where they make the most of windows of opportunity (Sam otherwise engaged) quick stealth in and go for a grab. Resulting the player being afforded varying times for a counter and engagement of CQC mode. (So a sneak from the back gives the Player a tiny moment to respond [minor QTE I suppose], but from the side, in field of vision is a longer opening and from the front gives Sam the opportunity for an instant KO or automatically goes into CQC mode.