Anyway, enough foreplay. The topic for the first edition is <sound of trumpets playing>…the problem with shooting games. “Wha-?” I hear you say. “What could you possibly have against shooters, those wonderful games that let us brutally murder digital creatures and people from the comforts of our lounge rooms?”
First of all – you talk too much – but to answer your long-winded question, there’s lots wrong with them. In fact, I’m calling the following list five things wrong with shooting games. Think of it like that 20 to 1 show with Bert Newton, but not as hilarious. Oh Bert, shine on you crazy star. Let’s begin.
5. The main character
The typical shooting game protagonist (which is, ironically, a word a shooter character wouldn’t understand) is some sort of super-human, roided-up mute with arms like tree trunks. You can bet he’s male, some kind of delta force or special forces operative who lets bungling scientists inject him full of all sorts of body-enhancing concoctions. As you do.
More often that not, he will have the ability to carry a pistol, a shotgun, an assault rifle, a grenade launcher, some sort of futuristic weapon that shoots frickin’ lazer beams, and a crap-tonne of ammo which he can somehow carry around for 10 hours without getting a hernia. He’ll usually be wearing some sort of billion-dollar, fancy-pants armour that regenerates health, but never seems to have a zipper for toilet breaks. Apparently super soldiers don’t need to tinkle.
And I know what some of you are going to say (because I read minds): what about Samus from the Metroid games or Gordon Freeman from Half-Life? Ok, they’re at least a bit different to the standard shooting game protagonist. And what I mean by “a bit different” is “almost exactly the same”. What is Samus other than another mute, macho-type in armour? What difference does it really make that she’s a mute, macho female? And Gordon Freeman, though he’s apparently a nerdy physicist, would only ever use a calculator to smash someone’s face in.
Gordon Freeman, off to solve another complex physics equation. With his gravity gun.
What I’d like to see - More variety in the type of main characters seen in shooting games, not just another commando armed to the eyeballs. Also let them talk. There is a theory in some sections of the gaming industry that if you create a main character with no voice, the player will be able to put themselves in the shoes of that character and will enjoy the experience more. It’s complete rubbish in my opinion. Nico in GTA IV had a squillion lines and was sometimes a painful git, but I felt a lot closer to him than to that voice-less gimp, Jack, in Bioshock.
Also, I’d like to see more characters where their personalities and backgrounds actually make a difference to the gameplay, rather than to merely justify their ability to shoot straight and manipulate time. What about this for an idea: A young girl who was raised by - let’s say monkeys - takes on a pharmaceutical company known for testing its products on... Let’s say monkeys. Rather than weapons, her agility and her ability to manipulate the environment would help her overcome her enemies. She could have one of her monkey friends as a sidekick, and he could have the special ability of flinging his poo at enemies.
Everyone loves monkeys. It’d sell billions.
4. Sequels which add little to the original
If a shooting game becomes a massive success, you can bet your Crash Bandicoot collection there will be a sequel. While I can see the argument for “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” when it comes to sequels, I also don’t want to play the same game again and again with only slightly better graphics. If it ain’t broke, why make it again? Adding the odd power, weapon or enemy doesn’t make it a new game. In fact, I would argue that any every game that uses more than 50 per cent of the programming code and story from the original game should cost 50 per cent less to buy. It’s only fair. Resistance 2, Halo 2 and Gears of War 2 looking at you.
What I’d like to see – I want more shooting game sequels with a bit more innovation. I hate having to review a game with the sentence: “If you liked Generic Shooting Hero 14, you’ll like Generic Shooting Hero 15”. It doesn’t have to be as dramatic a change as Far Cry 2 was from Far Cry, but the gaming public should expect more considering it was their hard-earned dollars buying the original game that made the sequel possible.
Halo 2 - completely different in every way to Halo.
3. The stories
To be fair, the majority of people buying a shooting game couldn’t care less whether the story was written by an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter or by Barry from over the back fence. People want action, so most of the budget of a shooting game seems to be spent on new ways a head can explode rather than on a deep narrative. Because of this, every shooter game seems to cut and pasted from the same sort of story. Here is an example:
Hugh Jarms is a highly trained soldier with super powers, the ability to slow time, and eight more arm muscles than the average human. He is sent with his team of other super soldiers to stop the aliens/terrorists/mutated creatures that threaten mankind. In his team of other highly-trained, super-daft soldiers, there must be at least one female, one heavy-arms guy with a mini-gun, and a black guy. At least one of these characters will die. Another will turn against you. And probably at the end of the game when you most expect it.
If you are fighting terrorists, they will be planning a nuclear attack. If the enemy is aliens, they have a deep-seeded hate for humans and want to take over the planet. If the enemy is a horde of mutated creatures with heads like dropped pies, they want to eat your brains and floss with your intestines. You get the picture.
What I’d like to see – Um, how about stories that aren’t clichéd and that don’t make me want to skip the cinematics? How about this: You’re a tarot card reader in a travelling circus, and you broke the Carny Code because you wouldn’t rip people off. Your fellow carnies now want you dead, so you and your pet monkey must fight to get your tarot cards back and start a new life. The bosses in the game will include carnival strongman Max McGuire, bearded lady Cynthia Hazamo, and Giggles, the midget who bends spoons with his mind.
And I thought of that in 10 seconds. If any games developers are reading this, get in contact with me. I’m basically printing money here.
2. Linear ‘paths’ and ‘corridor’ gameplay
Being agoraphobic (having a fear of open places) must be a perquisite of being a level designer for a shooting game, because almost all of these games want to herd the player down a narrow path, be it a corridor, sewer, trench or street. In these levels, you can guarantee that every door that looks like it will take you somewhere even remotely interesting is locked, and that every other potential path has rubble, a car, a fence or some other kind of obstruction blocking it. And be damned if you can’t find that hidden ladder or the one door in the whole bloody level that opens, because you’ll be doing circle-work for an hour trying to find your way to the next narrow corridor.
What I’d like to see – Linear paths might have worked for Doom 16 years ago, but come on, how about some new ideas? How about a game where every door opens? Or better yet, can be blasted open? After all, if you can cut a man in half with your shotgun, why can’t you shoot out a simple door lock? I want more open battlegrounds and more creativity instead of room after room of generic shooting action. Also, I want more games like Deus Ex with multiple paths and ways of completing tasks. Oh, and more monkeys, naturally.
Monkeys = awesome.
1. Lack of movement
So your character has the ability to gun down 1000 enemies per minute, manipulate time and space without getting jetlag, and can carry three billion ammo clips in regular-sized pockets. But bugger off if you think he’s going to be able to move those empty boxes blocking that doorway, or climb over that fence that comes all the way up his waist. What do you think he is, some kind of super solider?
After all this time, the majority of shooting game characters still don’t have the ability to grab a ledge and pull themselves up, climb over a small fence or get around an upturned car. And that gap in the fence so large that you could reverse a semi-trailer through it? Not likely.
What I’d like to see – Games that incorporate fluid and natural-feeling movement. Games like Mirror's Edge and Prince of Persia have shown the potential of movement in games, and how natural and fun it can be to be given that freedom.
Imagine a shooting game with the ability to move as fluidly as you can in Mirrors Edge? Imagine having the ability to enter an area full of enemies and to be able to quickly jump and pull yourself up to a higher vantage point to pick off enemies? How good would it be to be able to grab the nearest dumpster, desk or other movable object to slide around with you to use as cover? How good would it be if a game let you get past any reasonable obstacle or through any space a normal human (or monkey) could expect to go?
It’s fun to dream. Anyone got a banana?
I hope you enjoyed the first edition. Next edition I would like to talk to female gamers and get their views on the gaming world, so if you would like to be featured in the next edition, please contact me. Also, if you’d like to suggest an idea for a future article, please fell free to PM me or post a message below. It can be about almost anything. Let me know!
. Ok I tried writing a short reply but kept going off on tangents so I'll just say I agree with you but can't see it happening for a while and therefore developers should try to make a good game not a good story. 
Loading...
