How Long Until They Cannot Be Called Games?(Splinter Cell 5)

[StingingVelvet]

Remember when Nintendo games had the gameplay demo reel that started if you didn't hit a button for a certain amount of time? Ever watched a very young child play with the controller as if he was playing the game during these demo reels, when actually he was controlling nothing?

That's what this video reminds me of: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/warehouse-infiltration-splinter-cell/63413

Now, we have already had games that do not allow you to die or really penalize you for it (Prey, BioShock, Fable 2, Prince of Persia 2008) and we already have games that are much more streamlined and simplified than their prequels (Oblivion, Rainbow Six Vegas, Dawn of War 2) but now we are seeing GAMES THAT PLAY THEMSELVES.

As you will see in that video, the new Splinter Cell game has a much talked about "mark and execute feature." As soon as this was seen some gamers like myself we worried it would basically amount to the game playing itself, but Ubisoft said it was not like that and urged us to wait and see. Well... the demo is out, and if you cannot play it you can at least watch it, and HEY LOOK, you just hit a button to kill everything on the screen.

Now, no doubt someone will mention that you have to get a "stealth kill" first, which is true, but if you examine the level design in the demo you can see the levels are clearly made with constant use of mark and execute in mind. One lone bad guy, then two in the distance, or what-have-you. This makes the game a tunnel basically through which the player walks, hitting a button to take out the lonely guard who isn't looking, then hitting a button to instantly kill the others. Later levels might make this more challenging, we can only guess, but the fundamental idea that the game is designed around constant auto-shooting is quite clear.

Now, remember in the older Splinter Cell games, 1-3 specifically, how you had to be quick on your feet to stay hidden, or if caught to quickly take out the opposition? Getting two quick headshots was part of the skill of the game. If caught, you had to be quick and accurate, otherwise your lone spy in a complex filled with bad guys was going to eat it. Now though, now you don't need to worry about that... as shown in the gameplay video, even in a situation where you are caught you can just run up to one guy and auto kill him with the close up kill button, then turn and auto-kill every other person with the far away kill button. This is LITERALLY win-button gaming, it's already here, press Y to win. The skill of having to line up those quick headshots to escape is gone... the skill of needing to be stealthy when taking out one guy is gone, as you can instantly kill everyone else after so who cares if they notice you?

Now, reading previews even from journalists I respect like Anthony Burch of Destructoid, this whole thing seems to be no big deal because "it's the only way to look that cool." Now, here are my two problems with this: first off, if you master aiming, especially on a mouse but also on analog sticks, you can get two headshots in a row quickly... it's a skill, it's a talent and it takes time to master and it takes some luck, but you can do it. Making it automatic to make it look cool just says "if you're a bad gamer, if you suck at aiming, we will make you good at it anyway." This removed a fundamental aspect of what a GAME is, which is to say it takes skill to win, skill to master, skill to look and feel awesome about what you are doing. Secondly my problem is that THIS IS A VIDEOGAME, NOT A MOVIE. The emphasis should not be on looking cool, the emphasis should be on playing cool, on feeling cool, on being Sam Fisher not watching Sam Fisher. If I want to see a spy do two quick headshots with no effort from myself I will watch the Bourne movies, which this game is obviously and desperately trying to emulate, not play a game. A lot of game designers today seem obsessed with making movies to the point you wonder why they did not get into that industry, rather than this one. In short I want to FEEL like I got two headshots, not WATCH me get two headshots.

Lastly I am sure people will bring up that the mark and execute thing is optional, as far as we know. This is true, but it's still a terrible omen for several reasons. First off, the game is designed to use it. On PC the compass arrows in Oblivion that tell you where to go at all times are optional, you can remove them with a mod, but it's extremely hard to play missions you never did before with those arrows off because the game is designed to use them. Quest givers did not tell you exactly where to go, people do not tell you a contact's hangouts, because the game knows the arrows will lead you there. When a game is designed around a mechanic it tends to be needed, even if optional. In Splinter Cell Conviction I foresee scenarios where the only way to effectively save the hostage or stop the machine in time is to use the mark and execute feature, for example. Secondly, and most simply, it's only optional for now. As games continue down this simplified interactive movie path these things will become more and more standard practice and less and less optional.

As we remove the penalties of losing, the need for reasoning and thought and now the actual gameplay itself, one wonders how long we can call video games "games." Peter Molyneux recently said that Heavy Rain, and interactive movie from Sony, was the "future of videogaming." Scarily enough, he's probably right. I predict only multiplayer will really be able to be called a "game" soon enough, at least from AAA big publisher titles. The future of singleplayer is "interactive movies" and indie or small developer titles that actually still can be called GAMES.

[The_cranky_hermit]

Well, I was recently playing through Uncharted 2, where half of the game is platforming, and half of the game is shooting. The platforming sections practically play themselves - if you push the joystick in at least a general direction of where you're supposed to jump to, and hit the X button, Nate jumps, climbs, shimmies, or rappels straight to the next ledge in an pixel-precise manner. All of this happened in the original too, and to a slightly lesser extent, Tomb Raider Legend in 2006.

As usual, I blame the Halo generation.

[MobsterOO7]

Even though I'm having a blast playing through it, FF XIII is guilty of this. The entire battle system can be summarized like this "Push X to win".

[Tanuki]

First comment under video.

hey why the hell is THIS rated under 9???
its obvious hes playing on easy so you cant whine about the AI, takedowns and mark & execute are totally awesome and you can obviously choose between stealth and action... WHAT IS IT THAT YOU FAGS DONT LIKE???

[StingingVelvet]

Just to add insult to injury, the game has been delayed 2 weeks on PC at the last minute, despite their DRM actually working.

I am now firmly of the opinion that Ubisoft is doing all this to push us to consoles.

It might be working, I am sick of stress being part of my gaming.

[Paradigm Shifter]

I am now firmly of the opinion that Ubisoft is doing all this to push us to consoles

Seconded.

[GeneralAdmission]

I have to say, for the first couple of paragraphs I thought you were pulling my leg, SV. But no such luck...you hit this right on the head. This game really is built around a WIN button. Also, those huge "Come to this location" and "make your way to this cover spot" text prompts are revolting, and what the heck is that sonar-ping-reveal-all-enemies ability? Did Fisher get dolphin DNA injected into his brain?

This truly is a pathetic development path for gaming. Cranky, I think you lay the blame correctly on the Halo generation (and those who happily cater to them). For the devs and pubs I can see exactly why this is appealing: simplifying gameplay down to the bare minimum of interaction makes for easier/faster development, and it niftily (is that a word?) kills singleplayer replay value with a giant stake through the heart. Gamers will blow through the 3-hour campaign maybe 1-3 times and be back in the local game store a week (or perhaps the next day) later looking for a new game to buy. Testimony to this fact: my brother is an avid 360 player, and the number of games he gets through is mind-boggling (of course, he is a young bachelor, unlike me). Being the good older brother that I am, though, I built a second gaming PC in my office and he's now at my place regularly for L4D2 sessions. ;)

[quote]I am now firmly of the opinion that Ubisoft is doing all this to push us to consoles

Seconded.
I agree with a slight variation. Whatever the platform, the endgame is to get the customer to spend as much money as possible as often as possible. In a world where digital products inherently have infinite or increasingly long-term viability, how does one "help" one's older products die so new purchases will be made? For games it's easy: kill replay value (WIN-button hand-holding interactive movie snooze-fests), kill longevity (public dedicated servers, LAN support, MOD support), or even kill the actual long-term functionality of the product (required online connectivity, limited activations, etc.). The absurdly huge Counterstrike playerbase struck fear into the hearts of industry bean-counters--"Holy *#$*! They paid one time and are playing that single game for DECADES?!"--so they set about finding ways to stop that from happening again.

Enter the aforementioned "solutions".

[StingingVelvet]

I agree with a slight variation. Whatever the platform, the endgame is to get the customer to spend as much money as possible as often as possible. In a world where digital products inherently have infinite or increasingly long-term viability, how does one "help" one's older products die so new purchases will be made? For games it's easy: kill replay value (WIN-button hand-holding interactive movie snooze-fests), kill longevity (public dedicated servers, LAN support, MOD support), or even kill the actual long-term functionality of the product (required online connectivity, limited activations, etc.). The absurdly huge Counterstrike playerbase struck fear into the hearts of industry bean-counters--"Holy *#$*! They paid one time and are playing that single game for DECADES?!"--so they set about finding ways to stop that from happening again.

The consoles killed backwards compatibility this generation as well.

It all relates I think, the PC is just a less appealing platform for large publishers. They lose some control over their products, they have more support headaches on average, piracy is more rampant, people play one game for a lot longer period, people are more mature on average and buy less games, etc. etc.. The more console gaming takes over the better off large publishers will be.

Which is why I often wonder if they intentionally sabotage PC products to make us desire the console product.

[JohnnyWakko]

Gotta say that that is a travesty of pubonic proportions.

Although I think I am learning that you Velvet are a Splinter Cell/Tom Clancy fan am I right? I just wouldn't spend more than this paragraph thinking about it. But I agree where you are coming from.

A natural progression of consolization I am afriad.

[StingingVelvet]

Gotta say that that is a travesty of pubonic proportions.

Although I think I am learning that you Velvet are a Splinter Cell/Tom Clancy fan am I right? I just wouldn't spend more than this paragraph thinking about it. But I agree where you are coming from.

A natural progression of consolization I am afriad.

I'm a massive Splinter Cell fan, and thus sadly am buying this anyway, but wow is it a travesty from the look of things.

[Anprionsa]

I myself am also a SS fan! Played all the games and loved them. But this is making me wary. Simplified gameplay makes me wary. Companies want to make money, and because of this I can see all of the points brought up about this are true.

The question is... what can be done about it?

1. Support the developers and small companies that value gameplay and longevity with quality
2. Refuse to buy games that are thrown out to just make money

Companies with passion for games are the companies I will try my best to follow and give my money to.

[StingingVelvet]

The problem for me is I like simple games AND deeper games, so what the heck am I supposed to do? I wish SC5 was not turned into this, but this still looks like a game I would enjoy.

[g00seberry]

I agree with everything said.

I was a huge huge Splinter Cell fan, one of the first games I played on the original XBox and thought it was all kinds of awesome.

As SOON as conviction was announced, I knew it was gonna be a huge departure from what made the series special.

Ubisoft are dead to me. I'mna hold off on buying any Ubisoft game for as long as possible.

[g00seberry]

Seems you're not the only one SV.
It's like you wrote this....

http://www.damnlag.com/columns/302-gotta-rant-em-all/747-why-are-video-games-playing-themselves.html

[StingingVelvet]

Seems you're not the only one SV.
It's like you wrote this....

http://www.damnlag.com/columns/302-gotta-rant-em-all/747-why-are-video-games-playing-themselves.html

Great article, I wish I did write it.

[g00seberry]

Just noticed this too on my Steam games list...



These devs are serious about the number 2!

Any original games coming out? :( Seems to have been a while since a really good new IP.

[StingingVelvet]

Dragon Age is a new IP... and... err... Metro 2033 I guess.

We had a ton of awesome new IP the year before, as I recall. The last year has been sequel heaven though, yes. Perhaps an economy thing? Banking on the tried and tested?

[yogibbear]

Remember when Nintendo games had the gameplay demo reel that started if you didn't hit a button for a certain amount of time? Ever watched a very young child play with the controller as if he was playing the game during these demo reels, when actually he was controlling nothing?

That's what this video reminds me of: http://www.gametrailers.com/video/warehouse-infiltration-splinter-cell/63413

Now, we have already had games that do not allow you to die or really penalize you for it (Prey, BioShock, Fable 2, Prince of Persia 2008) and we already have games that are much more streamlined and simplified than their prequels (Oblivion, Rainbow Six Vegas, Dawn of War 2) but now we are seeing GAMES THAT PLAY THEMSELVES.

As you will see in that video, the new Splinter Cell game has a much talked about "mark and execute feature." As soon as this was seen some gamers like myself we worried it would basically amount to the game playing itself, but Ubisoft said it was not like that and urged us to wait and see. Well... the demo is out, and if you cannot play it you can at least watch it, and HEY LOOK, you just hit a button to kill everything on the screen.

Now, no doubt someone will mention that you have to get a "stealth kill" first, which is true, but if you examine the level design in the demo you can see the levels are clearly made with constant use of mark and execute in mind. One lone bad guy, then two in the distance, or what-have-you. This makes the game a tunnel basically through which the player walks, hitting a button to take out the lonely guard who isn't looking, then hitting a button to instantly kill the others. Later levels might make this more challenging, we can only guess, but the fundamental idea that the game is designed around constant auto-shooting is quite clear.

Now, remember in the older Splinter Cell games, 1-3 specifically, how you had to be quick on your feet to stay hidden, or if caught to quickly take out the opposition? Getting two quick headshots was part of the skill of the game. If caught, you had to be quick and accurate, otherwise your lone spy in a complex filled with bad guys was going to eat it. Now though, now you don't need to worry about that... as shown in the gameplay video, even in a situation where you are caught you can just run up to one guy and auto kill him with the close up kill button, then turn and auto-kill every other person with the far away kill button. This is LITERALLY win-button gaming, it's already here, press Y to win. The skill of having to line up those quick headshots to escape is gone... the skill of needing to be stealthy when taking out one guy is gone, as you can instantly kill everyone else after so who cares if they notice you?

Now, reading previews even from journalists I respect like Anthony Burch of Destructoid, this whole thing seems to be no big deal because "it's the only way to look that cool." Now, here are my two problems with this: first off, if you master aiming, especially on a mouse but also on analog sticks, you can get two headshots in a row quickly... it's a skill, it's a talent and it takes time to master and it takes some luck, but you can do it. Making it automatic to make it look cool just says "if you're a bad gamer, if you suck at aiming, we will make you good at it anyway." This removed a fundamental aspect of what a GAME is, which is to say it takes skill to win, skill to master, skill to look and feel awesome about what you are doing. Secondly my problem is that THIS IS A VIDEOGAME, NOT A MOVIE. The emphasis should not be on looking cool, the emphasis should be on playing cool, on feeling cool, on being Sam Fisher not watching Sam Fisher. If I want to see a spy do two quick headshots with no effort from myself I will watch the Bourne movies, which this game is obviously and desperately trying to emulate, not play a game. A lot of game designers today seem obsessed with making movies to the point you wonder why they did not get into that industry, rather than this one. In short I want to FEEL like I got two headshots, not WATCH me get two headshots.

Lastly I am sure people will bring up that the mark and execute thing is optional, as far as we know. This is true, but it's still a terrible omen for several reasons. First off, the game is designed to use it. On PC the compass arrows in Oblivion that tell you where to go at all times are optional, you can remove them with a mod, but it's extremely hard to play missions you never did before with those arrows off because the game is designed to use them. Quest givers did not tell you exactly where to go, people do not tell you a contact's hangouts, because the game knows the arrows will lead you there. When a game is designed around a mechanic it tends to be needed, even if optional. In Splinter Cell Conviction I foresee scenarios where the only way to effectively save the hostage or stop the machine in time is to use the mark and execute feature, for example. Secondly, and most simply, it's only optional for now. As games continue down this simplified interactive movie path these things will become more and more standard practice and less and less optional.

As we remove the penalties of losing, the need for reasoning and thought and now the actual gameplay itself, one wonders how long we can call video games "games." Peter Molyneux recently said that Heavy Rain, and interactive movie from Sony, was the "future of videogaming." Scarily enough, he's probably right. I predict only multiplayer will really be able to be called a "game" soon enough, at least from AAA big publisher titles. The future of singleplayer is "interactive movies" and indie or small developer titles that actually still can be called GAMES.

You took the thoughts right out of my subconscious and made them into a compelling argument. Agree wholeheartedly and can name many other examples in the last couple of years that have also gone down this path. The developers tend to just ditch their "hardcore" fans over the influx of console gamers.

I'm not sure this "strategy" is going to work in the long term. They seem to just jump ship from "well known great amazing game series" to another one and ruin one after another. Soon, we'll only have new IP to look forward to, and STALKER 7 and Crysis 12 and Half-Life 29

[DaFox]

Perhaps an economy thing? Banking on the tried and tested?

Oh definitely. That's what it is all about. And I can't say that I blame them... new IP's are hard.

[Paradigm Shifter]

There was nothing wrong with "risking it all" on a new IP back when games took maybe a million to make. Now they're multi-million affairs that take half a decade to code, publishers shy away from trying anything new as new is "dangerous".

People will buy an established brand even if it's shit in comparison to a lesser known competitor.

(I'm think of Shadow Hearts vs. Final Fantasy etc here...)