It seems the last years have brought several games that are merely multiplayer platforms for running and gunning, or some other vaguely unique multiplayer archetype. Rainbow Six Siege, Titanfall, Evolve, Battlefront, and the like. In previous years, these games may have simply been considered unfinished or still in progress; they wouldn't have, or shouldn't have, been released. In addition to games without campaign or story-mode, many titles have taken to increasingly short stories that can be completed in a day or two. Call of Duty and Battlefield are perhaps the most blatant offenders; and though most don't buy a CoD game for its story, I can still remember the days of Call of Duty 2 and Modern Warfare 1 & 2, and the enjoyment of playing their campaigns. They may not have been exceptionally long, but they were far more thorough than what we see today.
One could argue that not every developer has the money to implement a quality campaign and multiplayer platform, but this could be, in part, because most try to issue a new iteration, sequel, or game relatively every year. Is this good? I enjoy both story and multiplayer modes, though I hardly consider a game worth its money (especially $60) if it has only multiplayer. This is not to say there are not very long story modes that fall prey to repetitious mechanics and gameplay.
One issue people need to get over is the idea that every game needs a in-depth story-driven campaign, or campaign at all...As you mentioned, certain games, especially shooters, or played by people who buy it strictly for the multiplayer and don't care that the campaign was lacking or not there at all....You bring up a great point in this article, and it is something I believe is overlooked when it comes to the game design process. – MikeySheff8 years ago
I think the value of a game is often called into question in multiplayer only games or games that don't have a "single player component". I think this is not always a good thing but it is part of the some gamers consciousness. Additionally, thing to think a bout is how hard it is for a developer who specializes in making mutiplayer parts of a gam ego suddenly try to create a single player campaign, it is difficult to switch gears as it takes different things to make a single player campaign good compared to a multiplayer experience,they can be vastly different experiences. Amazing topic! – SeanGadus8 years ago
I love this idea! 'Super Bunnyhop' has a video related to this idea of story modes and multiplayer only games. I used to feel very strongly about games having some form of single-player content. However, after becoming obsessed with Rainbow Six Siege I have totally become convinced otherwise. It might be interesting to show how this idea of 'multiplayer only' started and how the trend evolved over time. – Daonso8 years ago
Video games often rely on story-telling not only through playing the game itself, but from the use of cut-scenes. Many cut-scenes stay true to the visual style throughout the game, while others have 2-D animated shorts. Either way, video game cut-scenes serve a variety of purposes, from enhancing appreciation of the artistic design of the game (such as close-ups on individual characters), to taking away direct control of the action from the player. Looking at cut-scenes in successful (or not-so-successful) video games, what purpose does the cut scene serve? What are its most essential components to make it a successful addition to the game itself? (Note: there are of course many examples of video games that have cut-scenes that “stay true to the visual style” as I mentioned—with 2-D animated shorts examples from Atlus’s Persona series comes to mind. That being said, this article may be better written by someone with a wider range of video game knowledge than myself.)
Analyze the use of alternate history in video games. Why is this a common trope? What are the effects on the player? What are the implications of doing this? Great examples would be Bioshock Infinite with it's alternate dimensions ending, as well as Fallout 3's alternate history which separates from ours in around the 1940's. Thoughts?
I love this idea! My favorite video game of all time is Bioshock simply because the alternate histories and realities are so mind-blowing and it makes my head spin with possibilities. – Jenae8 years ago
You could do an entire article on Assassin's Creed! Bioshock and Infinite are great examples because they capture the look, feel, and sounds of their distinct eras! Great Topic Idea! – SeanGadus8 years ago
Several wartime FPS games like Call of Duty would also be a good example. – SarahKnauf8 years ago
Great topic! It's engaging and would definitely interest a lot of readers. I believe working on 2 to 3 examples, analyzing the effects of the alternate histories, is a good way to write about this topic. – klepa8 years ago
Very interesting idea. It could be said that the alternate timeline set in the game's story allows the combination of "the present-day," with elements from another distinct era, giving players something familiar, yet totally new/different.
You could also bring in other game examples like "Wolfenstein" and the "Command and Conquer" series. – Jaeb5128 years ago
What about Wolfenstein? I took this topic as more about the "what if's" of history. Wolfenstein asks, "What if Germany had won WWII?" and creates that as an entirely separate history. It asks us to consider how different things could've been then and now. – Christina7 years ago
Talk about the concept of grinding in video games (Single-player console games. MMO's would be an entirely different topic). Often RPGs, especially JRPGs, require players to spend time mindlessly fighting enemies to up their level enough to advance the plot. Is that still warranted in today's game environment? Was it warranted in the past? Is the level-up system outdated?
Use examples of RPGs from the older generations (SNES, PS, PS2, Gameboy, etc) and modern generations (WiiU, PS4, XboxOne, etc). Did technical limitations play a role? Is it an old tradition that's stubbornly clinging to life? Am I wrong in suggesting it's outdated and it is still an essential part of RPGs?
Wow! This is a really really fascinating topic. I think you are really diving into a very deep area of discussion with this topic! But it is one that merits alot of discussion. One question I might ask the writer to think about is this: "when writing this topic is how deep will this conversation be?" Will a casual reader be able to read an article about grinding and understand the article with little to no knowledge of RPGs or will does the writer have to include alot of background to help clear up information and make this topic more clear to people not immediately familiar with rpgs. Just some food for thought. Regardless, this is an AMAZING topic to address in an article! – SeanGadus8 years ago
As a gamer, having played a certain amount of mmorpgs, and other games which require a grind, I am sure you can relate to all the other gamers that have probably been familiar with it. Today I feel there is a more of a "Pay2SkipGrind" option in all games. I am not sure that level up is outdated but it gives players a goal to get to feel that their countless hours atleast got them something. – Fluxz8 years ago
Honestly, this might be a little too philosophical, but I have always appreciated grinding. It has always felt a little closer to true life than a lot of aspects of video games. For instance, grinding seems to connect closely with practicing sports. When you practice something like baseball, you simply need to go to the batting cages and hit a baseball at a certain speed over and over and over again. It might get a little boring, but only by crazy amounts of repetition can you ever expect to improve and advance as an athlete. I think this is true of almost all areas of life--the necessity of practice to perfect a craft. You know, the whole 10,000 hours, Malcolm Gladwell thing. Anyways, I feel like I would argue FOR grinding because of this idea that it connects the game a little more closely to the real world. – Squirrels8 years ago
I think it would be worthwhile to address how grinding has "evolved." For example, turn-based RPGs like the older Final Fantasy games are nostalgic certainly, but probably too outdated for today's modern gameplay. FFXV and Kingdom Hearts (to name a few games), while still RPGs, took out the turn-based gameplay and integrated more seamless gameplay while still forcing the player to grind. I think the difference between these grinding methods lies right there, in the seamless-ness. – Christina7 years ago
Write about how morality plays an important role in the story of a video game
Interesting topic. A discussion of morality in video games could cover both aspects of the game that lurk in the moral grey areas or are blatantly immoral and whether players might feel remorse or hesitate in performing an action (i.e. just because you can doesn't mean you should). – S.A. Takacs9 years ago
Grand Theft Auto would be a suitable reference for this topic. Munjeera – Munjeera9 years ago
I think this is an interesting topic. I agree with Munjeera about Grand Theft Auto being applicable to this category. In fact I think a whole article could be written about morality in the GTA series.
Side note, I think choice based games could be looked at as well because it puts players on the spot for situations that may highlight their morality. – Lexzie9 years ago
No other medium demands a more intimate relationship with the audience than video games because the player is perpetually required to progress the story forward. In this way the player becomes an active participant in the world as opposed to a passive observer. This is why being the player on your last heart in "The Legend of Zelda" will feel incredibly epic but will look like a bunch of cheesy blips and beeps on a screen to anyone else watching. Creating a game in which it's central mechanics would rely on the players morals would be so effective because of how emotionally invested the player feels already. – mynameisreza9 years ago
I agree with Lexzie about the importance of choice-based games when it comes to morality. Games developed by Telltales (like The Walking Dead) might be suitable examples. – faezew9 years ago
If you're gonna write about morality in video games, what better example to use than the Bioshock series? There's still a lot to explore there. – Tanner Ollo9 years ago
This raises questions about what exactly should be allowed to be shown in certain films to certain audiences. There is much scandal surrounding violence in video games and films especially involving young people. This scandal sparked from the Columbine massacre and has become more and more controversial. Maybe change the aim of this topic to 'the influence of ethics from video games' – Brandon T. Gass8 years ago
Are you considering working anything like Half-Life 2 or Portal into this? I feel like these games could be a fertile ground for analyzing ethics within a video game medium. – Matt Sautman8 years ago
It would be interesting to explore the idea that Fable 2 starting with "mortality". I remember it being a huge deal that, instead of dying, the character would just receive facial scars. It took away that "punishment" that gamers either love or hate. – kaseyshaw8 years ago
Bioware games like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and the Mass Effect games would make great references for this. – hagenb8 years ago
It's important that games don't label their moral choices as "good" or "bad" each action should come with its own package of pros and cons and the player should make their decision based on which set of pros and cons they feel better about. – JacksonAP8 years ago
It seems to me that game studios are becoming more "moral" the late 80's and 90's produced really violent games for the sake of being violent, now at least (most) games give a proper context as to why the violence is needed and is less for the sake of creating a hype around violence or sexual content. – LelandMarmon8 years ago
The Wii-U was a commercial flop, with only 13 million units shipped, yet everyone continues to love Nintendo and all of their franchises. With the Nintendo Switch coming out soon this could be Nintendo's last chance at hardware if this console doesn't succeed. If this console fails, will Nintendo become the next Sega and become focused just on software instead of hardware?
An interesting topic. I believe we already have an article exploring what the Nintendo Switch needs to do in order to succeed, but I do think it's at least important to address that. Perhaps one can give examples of Sega's own failures or trace their own history - can any other major comparisons be made between the two? Or will Nintendo simply bounce back from any potential failure of the Switch because they are so well-loved due to their brand or franchises? What would it even mean to become the "next Sega"? – karebear78 years ago
I haven't been into Nintendo products for awhile now, but I was surprised that the Wii-U flopped.The parallels with Sega are a little scary, though I would say Nintendo has much stronger legs to stand on than Sega did, This is a great topic. – MikeySheff8 years ago
Hi! I wrote an article about the Nintendo Switch and what factors might determine its success but I think there is plenty of room to discussion the idea of Nintendo getting out of the console making game in a new article. Maybe focusing on pros and cons of the move from making both software and hardware to just hardware would be a good fit for this topic. What is gained and lost by Nintendo no longer making hardware and focusing just on software. – SeanGadus8 years ago
From a literary perspective, are video games worth studying, or should you put down the controller and pick up a book?
There is certainly something to be said for the level of artistry that games have achieved in recent years. This justifies intellectual criticism of these new developments and, in turn, justifies criticism of previous "less artistic" developments for a better historical understanding and appreciation of the form (e.g. we don't study The Sneeze as a masterpiece of cinema, we study it as landmark event in the history of film; so too will be the case with Pong). However, I think it is high time that Video Games Studies truly becomes a field of its own. Your use of the word "literary" feels inaccurate, which may be a contributing factor as to why many literary scholars are quick to reject Video Games as a form, since they see it as a low-brown infringement on their domain. At the moment, most academic work surrounding Video Games has been contained in Film (as its closest relative with regards to media) and Theatre (as its closest relative with regards to interactivity) Studies, but it strikes us as being too different from either of these to real belong within them. Only with a Department of its own can the form (and its societal appreciation) truly begin to flourish, as was the case when Film Departments began to appear in the 1920s. – ProtoCanon8 years ago
I think that a interesting way you could pursue this topic is to discuss the Video Games as an art/art form debate. Because if video games are art, then the argument can be made that they deserve to be studied on the same level as art or film. Additionally, I think that thinking about how much of video games are "intentional" could be an interesting angle to pursue. For example, the creators the video game make a conscious decision on art style, what moves a player can do, how the game plays, and what perspective is the game in (3rd or 1st). These are conscious decisions made by the creators, similar to how authors make conscious decisions about how they construct a narrative such as 1st or 3rd person, what information the reader knows about and what is hidden from the reader. – SeanGadus8 years ago
I agree entirely that Video-Games should be studied as an artistic medium; I personally find them to be a somewhat more interactive medium than conventional art-forms though, which leads to a sort of rift between studying games and, say, film studies.
Nonetheless, they should be examined, if not just for the artistic choices made by their creators but the story choices as well. Most games today have a defined storyline or plot in them (though some don't, which is fine). However, the way a developer can portray that story can vary widely across games: some games, such as the Legend of Zelda franchise, give the player a relatively deep pool of lore to sift through just by playing the game. However, other games, such as Cave Story or Superbrothers Swords and Sworcery have a more subtle way of giving the player the story, and may leave parts up to us as players to interpret. There are also games like FEZ and The BInding of Isaac, which have purposefully cryptic storylines which the players must explore for themselves, giving them a greater sense of accomplishment when something finally "clicks" than if they were merely given a predetermined plot point. – bwmaksym8 years ago
Literary studies cannot remain so rigid. For one, the concept of "literary worth" is rapidly changing as self-publishing options are becoming more and more profitable and accessible. Therefore, what deserves to be published (and therefore read) is subject to change. At the same time, other forms of media have been considered "unworthy of academic study" for generations. At first it was film, then it was pulp and genre fiction, and now it's video games. Video games are not literature, nor are they film and therefore need a specific set of tools to analyse their critical and philosophical significance. Yet, they still provide us with a message, they still use visual and audial aids to immerse us in reality, and they still often follow some sort of narrative structure. To think that video games are undeserving of the title of "art" or too banal for intensive literary study is absurd. – X8 years ago
Video games have come a long way and now the technology is very developed, as we can see how hyper-realistic the graphics are and how incredibly intelligent the AIs are. Putting aside people who develop games and who game for a living, I wonder if video games as a sheer form of entertainment actually provide any important values to a heavy gamer's life–by heavy gamer I mean someone who spend most of their time gaming not for profit or work. Also, in this context, I'm referring to non-educational games, so not the games that is meant to educate kids, but games that is meant to entertain, such as DOTA, Far Cry, Infamous Son, Counter Strike etc. Take Counter-Strike: Global Offensive for example, some kids play it night and day, and all they do is shooting people. One could argue that such time can be spent on reading, an activity that provides not only entertainment, but also important values.
Just for the sake of bouncing off ideas with people, another argument I could think of is that, even though some games might have educational values, they probably don't improve things like literacy as much as reading a book does. I also keep thinking that if a person play violin 24/7, they would become a virtuoso, where as if they play games 24/7, no matter how educational the game is, I doubt they would obtain any actual skills.
Now before you think I'm an anti-gamer, I want to clarify that I'm not. I have played lots of games. I just wanted to occupy one side of argument so that it might be easier for other people to take another (or agree on my side).
This topic sometimes occurs to my mind when I see people just play games 24/7 (again, excluding professional gamers and game developers); they don't care about other things other than their games. It sometimes seems to be like an addictive mind drug. Such things don't really happen to people who enjoy other forms of entertainment (music, movies, sports etc), which is what makes the games a different kinds of entertainment than those, in my opinion.
Take away video games from one's life, I would tend to think it wouldn't do much harm to a person (assuming that they are not addicted already), but if you take away other arts from someone's life, I think that would actually do some sort of damage to them. So how valuable is gaming to one's life? Is gaming just pretty much wasting time? If you were a heavy gamer, how would you justify all your time spent on gaming?
Do you want to focus on extreme gamers (i.e. the 24/7 gamers you described above) or just gamers in general, even the casual ones? I've been playing video games nearly my whole life and have successfully finished many. While I'm not what you might consider addicted (on average I'll play at most 4 hours of a game in a day, but I'll stop gaming for months if I have a heavy school load), I think I'd definitely lose something if they were taken away. I love gaming for the immersion it gives me into a new world, like a book or a movie - I love the escape of it. If you took away my movies or books, I'd be very angry for the same reasons. If you want to think of games as wasting time, then what about books with bad writing/fluffy or meaningless stories, or movies that are just action-packed with zero plot? Every medium has its flaws/problematic culture and I think by just looking at a violent game like Counter-Strike as an example of video games being a waste of time, you lose the games that are actually educational (there are games geared just for children after all), that operate much like books or movies by showing people a brand new world and offering them an escape, or that are just a really fun way to waste time. Wasting time is not, after all, always a bad thing. – karebear78 years ago
Is there a way that you could narrow this topic down? It is really interesting. It just seems like a monuments task, and almost like a research project. I would concur with the above comment on focusing on specific gamers like extreme gamers, or it can be a comparison with casual gamers. – AbeRamirez8 years ago
