It seems every single game that is released these days just uses monotonous combat encounters as some form of padding or filler.
Combat rarely seems meaningful or impactful, especially when you easily dispatch of the dozenth band of the same enemies you've already faced 50 times in the game.
I'm getting really tired of it, RDR2 was a great example of a game which could have been 2/3 shorter if they had removed half the whack-a-mole shootout sections, and had the overall game experience been none the poorer for it.
Every single mission in RDR2 ended in a shootout or two or three, it became an exasperating exercise in tedium merely waiting for the inevitable forced shootout in every single mission.
I don't understand how other gamers aren't exhausted with this anymore.
I want more varied gameplay experiences, I think to past experiences with games like Death Stranding, or Bully, and just wonder how the hell games ended up going the way they did.
Please stop filling games with pointless, repetitive violence that serves no purpose and carries no weight.
It's garbage game design for mental midgets.
I'm Tired of Combat In Video Games
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
youtu.be
twitter.com
Violence is fun, actually.
okay, midwit
Violence is the meaning of life. Sekiro is the peak of vidya.
based OP, although it seems like you and I hold a rare opinion. I've done a lot of thinking on the issue and there's a good video or two I can recommend:
youtu.be
youtu.be
I'll post some pasta in a second
Nice, I'll check those videos out later, my friend.
>a man with a sword or a gun on the box art is instantly - understandable, easy marketing
>when you start a game and you have a gun or a sword, there's no question as to what you'll be doing
>it is now expected that every game has combat; any game that doesn't is usually considered to be a game that's "making a point", but it shouldn't be like that
>games are so infatuated with combat because it's a style of play that's been refined for decades now, making it as fun to play as possible
>combat gets the best mileage; it's easier to design new NPCs to shoot and swing at than it is to develop many new systems of interactivity with the world
>dialogue for example hasn't seen the same development that combat has; an old RPG will have you pick a few dialogue options, and new RPGs are the exact same (yet even worse, see: Fallout 4, Mass Effect etc)
>ludo-narrative dissonance is massive and immersion breaking. LA Noire features a rookie cop protag that mows down waves of goons like it's no problem, Max Payne kills hundreds, Nathan Drake and Lara Croft practically genocide people
in comparison, Indiana Jones only kills 9 people in the first movie, which both games are inspired by
>compare your average book and how often combat features in it and it's a stark contrast to video games
>combat should be used to push the stakes as far as they can go, a struggle between life and death. when combat is non-stop all tension between player and world is removed, the only effective way to raise the stakes is a 'boss battle'
$Make love, not war.
%don't know how to make love.
%stop.
There are plenty of games out there that don't have combat as a feature.
But guess what, they aren't going to be 3rd person action-type games.
>Violence is the meaning of life.
For normal people, that's sex, particularly having it.
How does Death Stranding have more varied gameplay experiences than RDR2 does?
>within 5 minutes of playing a fantasy game, it seems almost given that you'll be fighting wolves, goblins or bandits, usually as an introduction to the combat mechanics
>in reality, if you were faced with a pack of wolves, your chances of survival would be slim at best, yet the protag is almost always going to prevail, once again furthering the disconnect between player and human connection
>combat can often weigh a game down and feel out of place, such as the earlier mentioned LA Noire, or Mirror's Edge
>games like TLOU 2 try to make the player feel guilty by engaging in combat, often by making it highly gory, without giving you a way to not engage with it
>they also fail by making the combat actively fun to engage in, which incentivizes players to participate. not only that, but the impact is short-lived; you might feel shocked upon killing the first, but on the 100th it loses its efficacy
>suspension of disbelief becomes difficult in one-sided combat encounters. killing a demi-God or a towering demon as a lone nobody in a Souls game feels slightly ridiculous, as does Ellie killing a group of hardened adult men with weapons
>it's a video game and not reality, therefore it is bad
Why would OP post all this shit and use an image of Fable? A game with garbage, repetetive combat full of samey, monotonous encounters against the same enemies over and over again?
Play a puzzle game
Or go read a book if you need story.
And if you're especially mentally deficient then just go watch a movie.
if a game is intent of portraying a realistic setting such as The Last of Us, yet you kill hundreds of people as a teenage girl, then yes it's a problem
Wait OP I actually have a game for you.
Pic related.
Then go play games that don't have combat, you whiny little faggot.
It's an example of a game that would have been a lot better with less combat and more varied missions.
I mean it had very varied gameplay (races, fishing competitions, chicken kicking competitions, trading, exploration, treasure hunting, archaeology, pub games etc. etc.), but that stuff was all limited to side content that many will just ignore.
DS has combat and bosses, disqualified
pick up a tactical shooter, one to three pops and either you or the enemy is dead dead