Video Games

**Yeauxleaux** · by **Yeauxleaux** » 4 July 2017, 02:38

I think so many games have combat because it is exciting, and it's a good plot point. Most stories in fiction involve some kind of conflict (even if it's not openly violent, physically) because it makes for good story and character development.

Tbh though I think this is a reflection on society as a whole rather than on the gaming industry, because all these businesses do is cater to what is popular. If "exciting" violence sells, game developers will capitalise on it. At the end of the day, these people aren't making games out of the goodness of their hearts, to make the world a more charitable place. It's a gaming industry and they want profit.

That's why not many people are rocking the boat, and increasingly all of the biggest titles have almost the same unoriginal gameplay ideas (even down to their controls). They've found a basic formula that sells bucketloads, it gets them money, so they recycle it to death with re-hashed stories and settings and half-assed designed "new" characters (who also look generic as fuck half the time). They will keep doing that, as long as people are satisfied paying $60 for a game they've played 30 times before, just dressed up a little different. People can be so brainless sometimes, and that's me included, I've bought into this industry hard myself over the years.

The most upsetting thing about it for me is that this isn't just new games. Even older titles are getting watered down as fuck to fit this new formula that sells. The games they're marketing as "Tomb Raider" these days are not the Tomb Raider I grew up with and loved. They play exactly the same as the next game, and that character they're calling "Lara Croft" has had literally all of her defining personality traits and visual cues and quirks stripped away. The whole set up is generic. That's upsetting to me, seeing the developers just disrespect the original source material and bastardise the title to keep profits going...

**Severelius** · by **Severelius** » 4 July 2017, 20:20

Yeauxleaux wrote:I think so many games have combat because it is exciting, and it's a good plot point. Most stories in fiction involve some kind of conflict (even if it's not openly violent, physically) because it makes for good story and character development.

On that point, I've found myself moving a bit away from games that are entirely combat-focused. Not entirely, but I've been playing more games where either there isn't combat or the combat can be entirely avoided.

My most played games lately are Minecraft, Stardew Valley, and Elite: Dangerous. All 3 have combat mechanics but it's entirely possible to ignore them if you want to. I play Minecraft on creative mode. I focus entirely on the farm aspect of Stardew Valley and ignore the dungeon. I play Elite in the solo play mode as a trader and escort, not an outlaw or bounty hunter.

I just find myself more interested in games about creating something lately, rather than destroying everything. Building elaborate, fleeting nonsense in Minecraft. A functioning farm (and hot gay romance) in Stardew Valley. A viable progressing career as a trader (and the expansion of the Alliance) in Elite.

Right now those goals just hold more appeal to me than "shoot all the people we tell you to shoot until we tell you to stop."

It has nothing to do with me mostly sucking at any kind of combat or anything that requires sharp reflexes in games... honest.

I wish there were more games where combat just isn't a thing, but as you point out it's just the default and most immediate option for when you want to generate excitement for most audiences.