Four Gaming Clichés That Absolutely Need To Die - HotHardware

Four Gaming Clichés That Absolutely Need To Die

16 thumbs up
Suddenly, Unbreakable Glass

This difference between this cliche and the previous one is typically a matter of degree. The previous example refers to short scripted events while UGS (Unbreakable Glass Syndrome) tends to occur during plot sequences. One moment, you're walking through the game world carrying enough weaponry to devastate a mid-sized country. Suddenly, you catch sight of something important. You race forward, only to come up short against a pane of glass or other barrier.


You can tell this is an important plot sequence because I'm standing there like a moron.

To add insult to injury, the main character will often hammer on it. With a fist. As opposed to the FleshRend 9000 or Phase Transition Cannon strapped across his back. Avoiding this trend is more about good storytelling and scene creation than anything else -- giving players reasons not to do things is a much better way to handle the situation than arbitrarily forbidding them from doing so. In a game like Dead Space, pictured above, the reason could've been the risk of vacuum exposure or the high likelihood of killing the two hostages. Instead the doors are conveniently locked and none of my weapons even scorch the paint.


Monsters can smash through whenever it's convenient.
In this case, right after killing my captain. I stoically watched.


Ideally, let's just get rid of invulnerable structures, period. No more chain-link fence that moonlights as a solid surface, no more flimsy wooden doors capable of withstanding tank fire. A few games, like the Red Faction series, have played with this -- DICE has the right idea with Battlefield 3, which allows for a significant amount of environmental destruction, but such titles are a distinct minority.

Giving players the freedom to re-shape terrain does create certain challenges, but not as many as you might think. There's a reason why soldiers in the real world don't go around firing rocket launchers inside of buildings or hurling blocks of C4 at the opposing side.


Not Pictured:  The original building

Physics, it turns out, is a really nasty end boss. The over-enthusiastic use of explosive ordinance in confined spaces could kill innocents, destroy valuable upgrades and ammo, completely ruins any chance of a stealth mission, and creates clouds of dust that choke and blind a player. At the same time, destructible environments open up more avenues for players to experiment and have fun inside the game.

Article Index:

1 2 3 Next
0
+ -

I like Diablo III! Is it complicated well no, do I get to kill a lotta stuff yes, is it fast paced relative, is it fun yes, is it large in size as a file NO not at all from what I have seen. Anyway I am also playing Skyrim and SWTOR but it (DIII) is only a beta for now with limited access!

0
+ -

So many true points here. Although i do look at graphics for a game i also look at the game play. if its no fun and boring, it can be the best graphics there is but i won't be getting it. I like a balance to be good :). that's not to say i won't buy a game because the graphics suck though.

+1
+ -

I agree with rapid, take d3 as the example. the graphics are good, maybe great but they haven't sacrificed gameplay. they try to hold to the original ideas behind D2 but hey the treasure pygmy's? those are awesome, not to mention the random scenarios like the jar of souls. The game industry needs more immersive game play. I loved SWKOTOR (starwars.) I played the game for 3 days straight beating every level and earning every possible side quest. the side quests and the hidden caves, plus the dialogue challenges were fantastic, like when you have to try and convinve Bastilla to help you defeat the last boss, if you convinced her she helps if not watch out. Girls hit hard.

0
+ -

hahaha that game is alot of fun!

"A few days ago, news broke that Max Payne 3 would require ~35GB of storage space."

that is going to require an xbox up grade for alot of people i know! i love graphics but if it kills the gameplay, in my opinion its a waste! don't sacrafice making the game a movie over gameplay!

diablo is awesome along with skyrim

+1
+ -

Yea did you get a chance try the Diablo 3 open beta that happened this last weekend? i got into the beta and the game play is amazingly fun, i have won the game with half the characters, the monk, Wizard and barbarian.

0
+ -

no I havent yet! I have been so busy with school! :/

0
+ -

I get your point about the cliches making gaming boring for predictable but for some games that is okay. If all these features are implemented it could result in the 80 dollar to 100 dollar games that you fear.

0
+ -

This is such a great article, and I totally agree with you regarding the unbreakable glass and stupid npc logic.

+4
+ -

My favorite Joel quote FTA -

"I'm wearing pieces of dragons I killed, I've got a demonic horse, an undead assassin helper monkey, and I can fling giants off a cliff with a well-articulated belch. I have a second deadly companion who follows me around as a pack mule. You have a broken sword and a badly-stained pair of pants."

LOL, priceless.

+1
+ -

I find it interesting that you start off with a comment about how gaming is getting increasingly more expensive and how that just won't do, and then you go off on "suggestions" to make gaming better. However, most of your suggestions would have the side effect of massively jacking up the price of production. Lets break it down.

--Scripted Sequences--

Sure more advances scenes as you suggested would be great, and a few games that do things like this often create a very immersive experience. You can't ignore that the extra planning for each and every scene would sink more time and money into handling each extra scenario the scene can play out to. You create more scenes so you create potentially more art, sounds, dialogue, and more to debug and playtest. Yes it works great, but it doesn't achieve the goal of making games cheaper or easier to make.

--Conveniently indestructable objects--

Every game that has destructable enviroments has had rave reviews on the features, but you don't dont discuss for even a moment what kind of technical success it is to do that. From a purely software programming point of view this kind of technology is incredibly difficult to implement into a graphical engine. Each game you listed here has gone through many iterations of the technology over several years until it finally got to a believable level of destruction. To make matters work mutable data types can frequently use more memory, and have problems being rendered as quickly as immutable data types. So this creates not only problems with engine design, but further complicates effect run speeds. The best way to balance this is to lower the graphics of some other aspect of the game. All of these considerations would also suggest that including this in every game would also jack the price of development up.

--mandatory success--

This goes back to similar points as scripted sequences. More branches equals potentially more art, sounds, voices, story planning, etc. Added level of complexity adds to development time, and therefore to the cost of the game.

Now don't get me wrong, all four of these items you covered would improve any game they are implemented in. The problem I have is that you somehow seem to assume this makes games cheaper or perhaps that these strategies are somehow easily implemented. Games are immensely complex productions and I believe you've oversimpified that fact.

1 2 3 Next
Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: