A few days ago someone asked me why there aren't any games that involve exploration and learning rather than gun violence. I got the feeling that her impression of video games was fairly common - they're all violent shooters.

Aside from the fact that the industry could really do with an extensive PR campaign to dispel this misconception there's actually a very real reason why such games are uncommon.

Firstly there's the technical issue - implementing hit-scan combat is easy. 3D models moving within a digital playground drawing lines between them is quite easy as a concept.

Secondly - we're talking about games. Games have rules and win conditions. They may be somewhat ill-defined (as in Minecraft: build something) but they're there. What would be the objective in such a game?

I'm not trying to be dismissive or flippant, I'm simply pointing out that it's not always as easy as "Make a game like this!". Personally I'd quite like some more games with a Dead Rising/Pokemon Snap mechanic.

I'm sure that there's any number of fun mechanics to still be discovered but as it stands implementing what she was asking for is a little tricky.

Lastly there's the concept of natural environments. Cities are simple geometric shapes - nature is made up of fine details and complex patterns.

Creating that on a large enough scale to explore is very difficult to do well. We have lots of tricks to make rendering common things easy but well done grass is unheard of. Leaves look terrible as anything other than background elements.

Humans shooting each other in blocky environments is easy to do. Is it that surprising that it's what we've worked on getting right when shareholders control the purse strings?

0 responses to "If only more people bought Grim Fandango"

Leave a Reply