Gaming clichés?

If it's not ZDoom, it goes here.
User avatar
Reactor
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:39 pm
Location: Island's Beauty, Hungary

Gaming clichés?

Post by Reactor »

I have a special request for you. This may sound strange, but I desire to know more gaming clichés - preferably of FPS games - which are commonly used in most games. I have no exact intentions with them, it's just...good to know. I know FPS games are on the market since only 1992, but during this time, clear standards were established in this genre, it doesn't matter who was the developer (and certain clichés are well used outside FPS games as well). My ask is that if you know any stereotypical stuff in gaming, do not hesitate to write them down. I would also like to hear the theory or reasoning behind them.

So far I noticed the following:

- Most FPS games feature a power plant (usually a nuclear one), and the primary objective is mostly the same: BLOW THE WHOLE THING UP!!!

In the middle of an enemy-infested territory, it'd make sense, though I don't really know what that radiation-infested zone could be used for after the victory is won...

- Enemy fortifications are impossible to enter, they're so damn well guarded...except for two routes. Ventilation system, and sewer system.

Guess the guards don't like the idea of being wriggled into a small crawlspace, or soak neck-deep in the sewage, so they just surmise that the hero won't enter those ways.

- Nuclear reactors are featured as gigantic pillar-like structures with platforms rotating around, electric jolts crackling around, and it emits a very distinct constant ambiance. And of course, they're perfectly safe to wander around without HAZMAT suit, and they can even be shot at, nothing bad will happen.

I'm totally clueless on this one. And yes, I am ashamed.

- The final levels usually have a very sad, depressing, sorrowful music.

Already discussed at the "Ideal final level music" topic, the explainations make perfect sense.

- Evil masterminds always want to rule or destroy Earth.

This makes them evil! Mwhahahahahaha!
User avatar
Naniyue
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:06 pm

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Naniyue »

Almost all video games employ one or more of the following three:

Male rescues female. (I know this is changing somewhat, but not enough.)

You are the only one that can save the world/universe/cosmos.

And by the mid Eighties, there is a boss at the end of every major area. (I've always hated this one the most. I used to complain about it as kid. Still don't like 'em.)

As far as FPS games go, there's also, "You are the only one that can perform an act correctly, and if you mess up just a little bit, it's game over." This is horribly true for the entire Call of Duty series.

Maybe, for the oddly safe to walk around nuclear reactors, it's like the original Frankenstein movie. The audience does not need to know how things actually work, as long as it looks science-like and cool.
User avatar
insightguy
Posts: 1730
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by insightguy »

FPS Guns:
There will almost always be these classification of guns, Almost all FPS games have this to an extent.
  • A melee option
  • A pistol / wimpy weapon
  • A spread fire weapon
  • An automatic weapon
  • Something involving explosives
  • Something really accurrate
  • Something exotic and ammo is very rare(flamethrowers, plasma guns, exotic stuff)
All bosses have a shit ton of health or have very exotic and glowing weak points.

Sticking pistols to your face does not get your face smashed it. (Most pistols have slides, so imagine firing a gun and that sliding back into your eye.)

Any multi barreled option with mechanical parts always needs to spin up before firing (even though spin-up is usually fast enough not to be a downside) and can some how be carried by a single man.

using nuclear based weapons rarely if ever, give the user cancer.

Vehicles and turrets are used by the player 3 times at most, unless the entire game is about them.

Asides from some exceptions, your character will be less or about just as armored as the bad guy's fodder but still able to take more hits than they can.

Bullets never missfire unless it's a horror or open world game.

Guns are indestructible, shooting at a gun does not damage it in any way and still operates like nothing happened.

You automatically sort bullets you pick up and never have to manually load magazines.

Weapons you pick up from dead bodies will always have a set amount of ammo with them, whether they fired at you or not.

Just remember, tropes are tools. They are not inherently cliche, just make sure to implement it well. (Recent example: High noon drifter is filled to the brim with cliches, yet we love it all to hell)
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13531
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Contact:

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Rachael »

using nuclear based weapons rarely if ever, give the user cancer.
Nuclear weapons will not give you cancer immediately. In fact, that's not how radiation works; much as it can induce cancer, there are other much more alarming effects in the immediacy and cancer is one of the long term effects that take months to years (sometimes even decades) to appear. That's typically well beyond the scope of the game, and even so most of the time when games feature these weapons they have the technology to cure it anyhow.
- Nuclear reactors are featured as gigantic pillar-like structures with platforms rotating around, electric jolts crackling around, and it emits a very distinct constant ambiance. And of course, they're perfectly safe to wander around without HAZMAT suit, and they can even be shot at, nothing bad will happen.

I'm totally clueless on this one. And yes, I am ashamed.
Nuclear reactors are usually tall pillar-shaped structures in real life, but they do not have those arcing platforms. In fact, due to the production of ozone having any open zaps is usually a bad idea. Electricity is not produced by the reactors themselves - they heat up water (steaming it) which goes into a turbine - not wholly unlike steam engines which we've had for more than a century now. They create energy (or rather, expel it really) by pushing electrons around - and with the proper magnets and coils, this is possible (it's how the alternator in a car works, as well).

For an experiment, take a very long wire and wrap it into a coil around a tube - then grab a very powerful magnet and push it through the tube. You can put the ends of the wire onto a voltmeter and watch what happens as you move the magnet around inside the tube of coils. That gives first-hand experience with how the majority of electricity we use is actually produced. (Again, being technical, it's not actually produced, it's expelled from you and into the wires as you push the electrons through it with the magnet)
User avatar
Reactor
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:39 pm
Location: Island's Beauty, Hungary

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Reactor »

Naniyue wrote:Male rescues female. (I know this is changing somewhat, but not enough.)
Yeah :) if there is a male and a female character, in most cases, you're the male and you need to rescue the female. This ought to be a homage on the classic fairy tales, where the noble courageous prince saves the princess from the evil dragon and they live happily ever after...
Naniyue wrote:You are the only one that can save the world/universe/cosmos.
Yeah, so typical :) one man has to replace the world's/country's entire police/military.
insightguy wrote:There will almost always be these classification of guns, Almost all FPS games have this to an extent.

A melee option
A pistol / wimpy weapon
A spread fire weapon
An automatic weapon
Something involving explosives
Something really accurrate
Something exotic and ammo is very rare(flamethrowers, plasma guns, exotic stuff)
Right on, I also noticed this on most FPS games, though some classic WWII games (CoD, MoHAA) seem to omit sci-fi Bullshit Rifles from their inventory. But ye, mostly classic and weak firearms come first, then the exotic, rare, mass-destruction weapons.
insightguy wrote:Any multi barreled option with mechanical parts always needs to spin up before firing (even though spin-up is usually fast enough not to be a downside) and can some how be carried by a single man.
I love this one! How a hero could carry and handle a massive, vehicle-mounted weapon is a mystery to me.
insightguy wrote:Guns are indestructible, shooting at a gun does not damage it in any way and still operates like nothing happened.
Another one! Most of the times, you can't even hit dropped guns or items, and even if you can, nothing serious happens. Imagine shooting a pack of missiles at point-blank range. Ouch, that WILL hurt!
Rachael wrote:Nuclear reactors are usually tall pillar-shaped structures in real life, but they do not have those arcing platforms. In fact, due to the production of ozone having any open zaps is usually a bad idea. Electricity is not produced by the reactors themselves - they heat up water (steaming it) which goes into a turbine - not wholly unlike steam engines which we've had for more than a century now. They create energy (or rather, expel it really) by pushing electrons around - and with the proper magnets and coils, this is possible (it's how the alternator in a car works, as well).
You both are also right about how can nuclear reactors be so unauthorized-personnel-friendly: most people has no concept of how it looks/how it works, it's still science fiction for them, so it must look cool with electric zaps, otherworldly ambiance, and for some wacky reason, everyone is allowed to enter close and personal and admire it without any protective gear :) (OK, to be fair, Gordon Freeman has the HEV suit on when tampering with Lambda Core)

It is quite interesting to know that it is actually the generator which looks and behaves like depicted in games, not the reactor, but for some reason, these monumental structures are always named as the reactor core. Guess the reason behind this is that the generator alone does not cause mass destruction around when explode, but the reactor does...

I don't know - including a traitor or being betrayed by former friends is a cliché gaming element or not? I've noticed many games having this as a plot device, but at the same time, many other games completely lacks treachery (usually those, which has no definite storyline). What's up with traitorous characters?
User avatar
Rachael
Posts: 13531
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:31 pm
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Contact:

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Rachael »

On a technical level, traitorous characters allows a game designer to include a single character that takes both the role of a friend and an enemy, saving up art design time, though I would imagine that's not the primary reason they get introduced. :P

Other than that, though, I don't think they really add much to the story. The idea of your friend becoming the game's primary antagonist and end boss is so overused right now. There was one game I played which did that (would prefer not to say, so as not to reveal spoilers) where there was a man who really liked the main character and supported and defended her throughout the earlier part of the story - but when push comes to shove he kills her friend and takes her to his "lair" where he drugs her and takes tons of pictures of her in compromising and vulnerable positions.
User avatar
phantombeta
Posts: 2084
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 1:27 am
Operating System Version (Optional): Windows 10
Graphics Processor: nVidia with Vulkan support
Location: Brazil

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by phantombeta »

Guess the reason behind this is that the generator alone does not cause mass destruction around when explode, but the reactor does...
That is not how nuclear reactors work.
Sure, you might be able to get them to spew radiation everywhere somehow if they're old designs*, but you won't ever get them to explode.
Also, if the reactor is working properly, you shouldn't need a HAZMAT to get near them, at least in non-ancient designs. AFAIK people occasionally have to go there to inspect it. This is because the nuclear fuel, which emits radiation, is in a pool of water*, which is pretty good at absorbing most of the radiation.

* Newer designs have safety features to prevent the reactor from contaminating the environment around it, and to prevent meltdowns and such in the first place.
* Some designs use other coolants, but I think all of them use some kind of liquid.
User avatar
Reactor
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:39 pm
Location: Island's Beauty, Hungary

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Reactor »

Eruanna is right, this treachery-storyline is getting old. So then I assume it can be considered a cliché plot device. I wasn't really sure about this, so I didn't mention it in the first post right away, but it's clear to me now that it is indeed very overused, much like the "ventilation shafts and sewage tunnels are NEVER guarded" game element.
I don't really see the point of overusing the treachery in gaming or movies - the only result will be that watchers/players will expect and already know who'll be the traitor...meh...

The reactor explosion is of course different from when, uh, a gas station explodes and such, maybe I used the wrong word. I was referring to a nuclear meltdown, which is indeed a pretty dangerous thing. As I mentioned - if there's something nuclear in the game, it CAN blow up and cause mass destruction :D even if it would be unrealistic, as science in reality does not really work that way.
As for the radiation, the nastiest are the gamma-rays, as they can penetrate pretty much everything which is not made of a thick lead, or some sci-fi energy shield maybe.

A notable chiché (yet it can be programming lazyness too): Civilian characters are never in a talkative mood. If you come close and press "action" to initiate a conversation, they'll always brush you off saying they're busy right now, even if they're just standing still, clearly bored...
User avatar
Naniyue
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:06 pm

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Naniyue »

Great explanations about those reactors! Coincidentally, I recently watched the old "Modern Marvels" show about engines. Neat stuff!

I think the trope/cliche about weapon types, as well as their order on the keyboard, comes straight from DooM. So many games of the era, and even today, generally have their weapons like that: melee under 1, pistols under 2, shotguns under 3 . . .

For video game NPCs, at least in the past, I think it just wasn't cost effective to breathe life into them. Computers are still far too primitive to give even one character a complete mind of their own. At least the Elder Scrolls series has tried to flesh them out, with both good and questionable results. A cheap but fun way, especially for JRPGs, could be to give each NPC ten expressions, randomly chosen each time you talk to them, but none repeat until you've heard all of them.

OH! Here's another one, especially for FPS games:
All of your companions are STOOPID, but your enemies are always cunning.

And also . . .
If you have a sliver of health left, the next enemy will always get in the first shot. That one should be on a list of Murphy's Laws of FPS games.
User avatar
leileilol
Posts: 4449
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:16 am
Preferred Pronouns: She/Her
Location: GNU/Hell

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by leileilol »

Skull-related decor in architecture.


though i do kind of miss the occasional health-bar-skeletonizing trope from some multiplatform amiga titles
spideyy.png
spideyy.png (2.89 KiB) Viewed 1270 times

however something tells me this thread isn't really about knowing more of the obvious cliches....hmm++
User avatar
Reactor
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:39 pm
Location: Island's Beauty, Hungary

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Reactor »

Really, there's nothing more into it. Since I asked Eruanna about how much one should deviate from stereotypical game elements (and wildweasel mentioned how much he is fed up with sewer levels), I desired to know which are the most overused elements in games. It can be important if someone is looking for new solutions, or wants to make a top 10 clichés list of gaming (Machinima maybe?), and so on.

Regarding to health, I noticed 2 more overused stereotypes:

- The life gauge is very often marked with a heart. (makes sense somewhat, since the heart stops, the person dies)
- Food always restores health! Sometimes even MORE than a medikit. (????? It's THAT tasty? Or the hero was suffering from digestive system inflammation, and couldn't eat? No idea...)
Interestingly, sometimes harmful stuff also gives back health or some kind of powerup - alcoholic drinks, drugs etc.
User avatar
Naniyue
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:06 pm

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Naniyue »

Don't forget the freshly edible turkey found in the trashcans of many a beat'em up! Rooster Teeth did a video about this kind of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s5K5RFzRzg

And while I've always hated Castlevania's use of the heart for something other than health, it's still interesting that they took a different path with it.

Alcohol in Dead Island does give health, but the side effects just aren't worth it.
User avatar
Reactor
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:39 pm
Location: Island's Beauty, Hungary

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Reactor »

No wonder this guy doesn't understand this phenomenon...neither do I. Freshly cooked fowl is surely a yummy food, in Castle Wolfenstein, it's the most common form of getting back on your feet. In Duke Nukem II, if you shoot at the turkey, you can even cook it yourself, which gives +1 health! This can be a cliché on its own right...why poultry?
Another such food is the apple, used as health restore in great many games. Yes, I know the famous idiom..."an apple a day keeps the doctor away"...but this is ridiculous :D

Alcohol is a common health restore items in many games - Sniper: Path of Vengeance, Wanted Guns, Return to castle Wolfenstein just to name a few of them. It does make sense a little bit, since when you're drunk, you feel much less pain.
User avatar
Naniyue
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:06 pm

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Naniyue »

I'll give you the less pain factor, that's for sure!

Yes, poultry itself is indeed a game cliche. And the poor old apple! It's the object of evil in Eden, but damn healthy to eat!
User avatar
Naniyue
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:06 pm

Re: Gaming clichés?

Post by Naniyue »

I can't BELIEVE I didn't list this first:

!!!!!!!!TIME LIMITS!!!!!!!!!!

Who says Mario can't take a few extra seconds to judge a jump? Does he really have to die the moment some celestial clock runs out? Is the air really that poisonous in Gauntlet? Actually, I understand time limits a little more in arcade games, as the whole point is to take your money, but in a home version they should be adjustable!
Locked

Return to “Off-Topic”