User blog:Geniusguy445/Games, shooters, and realism

Games. For all of the advancement of games, all the world cares about is a couple more pixels per inch. What is resolution to ingenuity? Do you care that all of these games are the same? Better graphics, different characters, more tutorials. Can anyone survive a sandbox game anymore?

The NES days are loved. Brand new games, and they were the best of the time. We are at a different point, and yet so many just want to improve the graphics. And we can't make a system of tutorials that allows the gamer to think, rather than be told everything, and have them like it. Those early games were impossible, because they gave you no grace. ''Save point? What save point? I hope you don't mind restarting.'' Now, they can be too easy. '''Please note, the entire game is not easy. Online with spammers is not easy. Online with no-lifes is not easy. Campaigns that are so easy that you beat the final boss without thinking? OR allies that are so dumb that they die by WALKING INTO YOUR OWN BLOODY FIRE?! And who honestly likes escort missions? This rant is on single player mode.'''

Things like objectives need to be considered carefully. Words, text, are all important. Conversations. But that's not what I'm talking about. Try locking on to someone these days? Did you lock-on to their head or their weakspot automatically, and with no other option? Congrats, you proved my point.

You see, I have thought about this objectives, leading, auto aim, telling you exactly what to do in video games, and why programmers have that. There are many reasons. One, being some fans don't like working to hard, so wins are just given to them. Two, programmers want gamers to feel a certain way, confident, skillful, immersed and not dead. But the biggest reason they do this can be explained through a Codec conversation taken from MGS 3. As that conversation goes, gamers are incredibly detached from their in-game counterparts. Without a doubt, we gamers are at a disadvantage. Add all-seeing CPU's (as computers that know where you are control the enemies) into the mix, and we end up being dead more often then alive. That's why I've came up with a system (weak and underdeveloped as it is) to solve this.
 * 1) CPU characters: As shown from Gears of War, enemies, if engaged by one person, will ignore the other players as if they don't exist. And turn around if you shoot them in the back. More realistic CPU's are coming. Now what of gamers and their disadvantage of not being able to smell, taste or touch in-game?
 * 2) Well, there are ways to cover for peripheral vision, as much of our instinct and reflex reactions come from the blurs out of the corners of our eye moving. A picture of said monitor
 * 3) Another, is simulating what the character would know.
 * 4) RPG's give all sorts of info, but to remember a password to unlock the sword after you travel backwards through a forest of doom watching out for the statue with the emerald eye... Pretty insane. If instead, your character could come up with ideas of what controls might do, like having the agent imagine him taking down someone when pushing a button. Even better if you give them ideas that don't work, and instead have the player reason them out. Like saying click this wrong button to do this. If taking someone down backwards requires jumping, I'd hope people would see the flaw.
 * 5) For combat, you might use the Weak Point Graph that I devised (maybe the only thing I came up with). Basically, it makes a grid of color on a target, and color codes weak and strong points based on what the character knows. Engines, gas tanks, tires, heads are all pretty obvious in weakness. Legs, and bulletproof vests are pretty strong. Talking to people would reveal more about weaknesses. However, places are weak or strong regardless of color. The grid is a help, and shows what the character knows. If you know that crotches are usually weak points on guys, put the spot isn't color coded, the point is still a weak spot. He might even congratulate himself on good luck.
 * 6) Last is the skill. Agents wall hug to stay hidden, like in Gears. Shooting will alert guards, but takedowns usually won't, like in 007. And using weak parts to your advantage makes sense, like in Metal Gear. These controls must easily translate to a button press or combo. Use things like slow-mo shootouts (007), where the action slows, but the player goes at full speed to eliminate guards in the room. At full speed, most gamers would look like they were the real, ultra accurate Bond himself. You may not have help in the cutscenes that want you to do something, but you'd be trained for such nonsense already. Nonetheless, the feel is that you, the player, have done all of the action, with no help. The only help, is what you would have done, if you had the same training. If you can understand this and incorporate these sorts of things, these would be marked as some of the most ground breaking games of the decade. Overall realism, and reward.


 * Specifics: escort missions may be in my games. Do realize, they only happen, when you are in/are a machine, and only need to think of protecting yourself, rather than an idiot two miles away! Build character and skill the way they are? Sure, but pounding your forehead makes your skull harder and builds character, too. If you honestly needed those, you'd find a work-around, and instead wear a hard-hat. They work better. Just like in games, if you need awareness, you'd train on that in a different way. Not by doing escort missions.
 * It doesn't hurt to have good graphics. I'd like some retro games to be revisited with better graphics. But notice how awesome they are before graphics! Notice how the camera is smarter in Super Mario 64 than SM Sunshine! Playability, then graphics
 * And remember, some people have friends, so throw in something in congrats. Not all nerds have friends. But they may own you. In games now, and in work later.

G'night ev'rybody!