Brilliant as it undeniably is, there’s a moment in BioShock Infinite where you realise that it’s turned a corner. Booker DeWitt’s exciting excursion to Columbia opens with very little action at all; the game’s perfectly content to let you explore the skyward archipelago at your own pace. But as you sprint towards the adventure’s mind-bending conclusion, it’s hard to think without being forced to pull out your guns. It’s an issue that’s not necessarily limited to Irrational Games’ latest endeavour, but intrinsic to the industry as a whole. The question is: why?
One of the biggest criticisms pointed at the Uncharted franchise is the discrepancy between Nathan Drake’s personality and the series’ actual gameplay. Solid writing and impressive performances from voice actor Nolan North help to give the character an air of believability, but all of developer Naughty Dog’s hard work is undone when you’re suddenly forced to mow down hundreds of troops in a single encounter. The studio tries to work around this problem by plunging the protagonist into increasingly desperate scenarios, but it doesn’t get a pass because of this.
Crystal Dynamics’ ambitious Tomb Raider reboot suffers from a similar problem. The studio makes a big deal out of Lara Croft’s first execution at the start of the game, but the poignant moment is shrugged aside hours later as the character takes it upon herself to scoop up a grenade launcher and start incinerating everyone in her path. Much like Uncharted, the title places the protagonist in an extremely dire situation, but the character’s transition from innocent and naive teenager to homicidal manic doesn’t make sense. In each of the previous two cited examples – of which this issue is absolutely not limited to – the complete disregard for natural narrative development is made at the expense of squeezing in traditional gameplay mechanics. But why must our activities almost always be limited to pulling a trigger?
Heavy Rain and The Walking Dead recently proved that there are other options for interactive adventures: talking, exploring, and making decisions all take a precedent in the aforementioned games. In fact, when you actually do opt to fire a gun in either of the above titles, it’s an agonising moment that underscores the brutality of the act in itself. It’s not that games need to do away with gunplay entirely, but it would be nice if fire fights were made to feel like they matter if that’s what the plot actually warrants.
Frustratingly, BioShock Infinite proves in its opening hours that this is feasible. While Booker DeWitt’s actions never feel inappropriate in the first-person adventure, the game is far and away at its best when you’re quietly exploring Columbia in the opening moments of the campaign. You’ll spend the majority of the title’s first couple of hours merely soaking up the scenery, eavesdropping on conversations, and aimlessly wandering around – but the final third devolves into a series of shoot outs that, while enjoyable, never quite come close to recapturing the same sense of wide-eyed wonder that’s so brilliantly realised at the start of the game. And it’s such a shame.
It’s almost as though developers start with grand narrative ambitions, and then realise that they need to expand their ideas with some form of interactivity in order to make them more appealing. But why does the industry rely so heavily on gunfights to augment that additional layer? And why must supposedly mature games almost always culminate in death tolls beyond what’s actually plausible? If the medium is ever going to evolve, then perhaps it’s time that gaming’s greatest minds started exploring mechanics that don’t ultimately rely on you having a submachine gun in your hand.
Do you agree that titles such as Uncharted and Tomb Raider rely far too heavily on gunplay? How would you feel if combat was stripped back to allow a greater emphasis on exploration or other mechanics? Let us know in the comments section and poll below.
Do you feel that gunplay is far too prevalent in gaming? (29 votes)
- Yes, developers need to find a better balance
- It very much depends on the title
- No, I love shooting mechanics
Please login to vote in this poll.
Comments 22
I enjoyed the fire fights in Uncharted, only about 2 or 3 felt out of place. Although, if ND wants to ditch the shooting in U4, then they're free to do so.
Guns have always been part of video games, they have just become increasingly realistic thanks to advances in technology. A good story is nice, but taking out a gameplay mechanic that someone finds fun because it doesn't fit in the narrative doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I think First Person Shooters are the problem here.
@IAmNotWill It's not about necessarily taking it out, though — it's about making it fit. As I say in the article, Nathan Drake is a likeable, friendly character, but he goes on to kill hundreds of characters during the course of a game. If he was portrayed as a psychopathic villain, it would make sense. But it's clear in the case of Uncharted that Drake kills so many people just because it's something that the player can do while there's not a cut-scene going on. Isn't that kind of dumb?
One of the things I enjoyed most about a game like Sleep Dogs was the focus on hand to hand combat. I mean you are still taking out waves of bad guys but it was nice to have guns not be the focus.
@Splat That's a great counterpoint, too, because it makes sense that there would be an emphasis on hand-to-hand combat in such a setting. It also means that in the moments where you do get a gun, it's genuinely exciting.
Great point.
This is a really interesting point. I think some games have too much gunplay, others too little. In story-driven games you sometimes get a bit sick of all the dialogue, and you just want to shoot things. Other times you welcome downtime after hectic combat. It's all just about balance.
And it really annoys me when we're held at gunpoint by the bad guy and we're forced to watch as if there's nothing we can do - even though we've just slaughtered entire armies to get here. But really this all boils back down to narrative in games. It's a hard thing to do right, especially if your game world is supposed to be realistic and abide by the same rules as our own. It begs the question what can developers actually do? Make it so you get killed by a single bullet every time?
The gunplay in many games is a narrative flaw. Stories about ordinary people in exceptional circumstances suddenly finding the skill to mow down enemies like a special forces supersoldier. In the film world such unrealistic character arcs are found in only the dumbest of action movies but major budget quality game productions cannot get by having to use gunplay to drive the narrative. Sleeping dogs had its flaws but it didn't throw gun battles at the player constantly, it relied on melee and felt truer for it. Hitman absolution gave the tools for massive firefights but made it clear that was not the path meant to be taken. If a gun battle is not truly needed and drives the plot then leave it out, games set in the real world or at least an approximation of it should reflect it, and at the moment every miscreant on the street is not packing an Uzi or a machete shoved down their pants, nor do they tend to have an armed posse toting rpgs to call on. Narrative is the key.
I don't have any complaints about the gunfights in Uncharted. I mean if you wan to to talk about expanding the melee action uncharted then that would be great as I love what now they are expanding it. I pretty much that it makes sense when Nathan Drake is killing people and pretty much loved all of the gunfights in Uncharted. I also love the non action moments for platforming, puzzles and just gameplay moments to further the story. in Uncharted too. One of the puzzles in U3 was just perfect. But I still felt almost all of the gunfights were fantastic in the game. I would love to see melee expanded in games though and made a bigger part of the fighting. I feel like that's something that could really improve for instance the, the Transformers games.
You can't beat a dog for wagging his tail.
......or shooters gonna shoot. Bioshock really only suffered because it did too good of a job in the beginning. It's hard to mantain "new car smell" magic for 15 hours straight, especially in a FPS.
So like every game in the genre the ramp up the difficulty and intensity toward the end. Otherwise gamers would be complaining it was too easy, longwinded, or pretentious.
I finished Tomb Raider earlier today and, though I enjoyed it, this was exactly the sort of thing on my mind. I understand that it's unavoidable if you want to tell a certain story, but I wish there had been ways I could have got around some sections non-lethally — or, at the very least, had let me kill stealthily using nothing more than bow and arrow.
There were some sections in that game where I felt practically forced to use the rifle and / or grenades because of the number of enemies, and it didn't sit well with me considering the beginnings of the story when Lara was distraught that she had to kill somebody at all.
In the case of that game, it perhaps wouldn't have been quite so bad if it wasn't for the streams of enemies that poured in whenever a guard was alerted to your presence; that was avoidable in many cases, but not in all. If the groups you encountered had been kept smaller, maybe it wouldn't have stood out as much. You'd still end up shooting down a lot of people, but it wouldn't end up like a shooting gallery.
I read the title as "Do we really need so much gameplay in games?" Which is a rather silly question, so crisis averted.
All depends on the game for me. The gunplay makes sense and is an absolute blast in games such as Halo, Gears of War, Resistance and Killzone. I also would put Bioshock in that category, in fact, I'd actually say I enjoy the gunfights in Bioshock 1 and Infinite more than any other game this generation. There's a particular section probably about mid-way through Infinite that I hesitate to talk about because I don't want to spoil anything for anybody but it was a pretty intense battle and was one of my favorite parts of the game so far.
Great article Sammy!
I'd love non-lethal take downs and captures in all games, from Halo, to Uncharted, Tomb Raider, and even in Zelda it would be fun.
Not killing can be just as fun a gameplay mechanic as killing, it just comes down to whether or not the developer has the imagination and creativity for it.
Even in a very simple form, melee take downs should be non-lethal options, but in many games I'm pretty sure it's just as lethal as the bullet, and just an option for the player to be more brutal.
I do have qualms about Nathan Drake just having been injured crawling through snow and suffering from dehydration and being desperate for water and then just going back into full battle mode though. That just didn't make sense.
I get bored without shoot stuff up
My problem is more oversaturation of the FPS genre than anything else. All in all, it depends on the title.
I did have moments in Uncharted where I thought, 'not another battle...'. Having said that, the whole game had that over the top 80s action movie vibe to me, so it kind of got away with it, and I enjoyed the game.
The new Tomb Raider is not what I was hoping for, I've played the series since the first game on the Saturn, but find this new 'realistic' character / combat focus unappealing, and without the charm of Crystal Dynamics previous games which drew more upon the platform / puzzle elements.
Yeah I agree there should be another way to make a game with such focus in guns just look at Sleep Dogs and Watch Dogs they don't are "realistic" games and doesn't use alot of guns they are kinda an option or emegency use only.
Developers should find a way to make teh game more unique and avoid the constant and current cover shoot advance routine.
Please just leave these constant gunplay to FPS and Military Shooters that are made for that.
CS 1.5 and 1.6 made me love killing humans
If you're going to make a FPS - first person SHOOTER - then you are going to put shooting in it. Though I've also liked a bunch a shooting 3rd person games, most recently Vanquish, and really the whole Ratchet and Clank series is about shooting stuff. I hated Uncharted though and only forced myself thru it on EASY to get the backstory for 2, so I see your point, 2 much shooting in adventure games. I really hated when Jak 2 went all GTA guns a blazing b/c Jak and Daxter is such an awesome platformer. Jak 2 though does have the best ever shooting gallery I've ever played in a game, great graphics and sound effects, I played it over and over with every weapon.
Guess it all just depends on the game.
sadly , this is what people want in a game , so developers satisfy their need .
I don't have any problem with it. In something like Uncharted, my view is that Drake wouldn't necessarily be a killer, but he has no choice. If people are coming at you with guns, and you have a gun, you either shoot them or they shoot you. Killing out of necessity doesn't make you "a killer" - if you see what I mean.
What I'd like to see next gen is a more realistic mechanic to all the shooting. For example, rather than having to kill someone outright or they get up again, let us be able to shoot them in the leg or arm, then disarm and leave them as we move on - maybe just knocking them unconscious or something. Do away with the wave upon wave of fairly mindless enemies and have a few genuinely intelligent ones who use cover effectively and are a genuine challenge to overcome, but will go down if you hit them in the leg etc. Getting past someone like that would feel far more rewarding than cutting down a wave of 50 mindless bullet-sponges.
And you should always, always be able to pick up the weapons of your enemies. That was one area Uncharted gets right and where Tomb Raider really fell down for me. I kill a guy who has a gun, but I can't pick it up and use it - what?
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...