Anonymous asked:

I was looking through some older asks, and I was wondering, what's the worst case in which a game tries to "empower the player" that you've seen? (Also, fun fact, I also asked the question in which you used that phrase.)

I'm going to assume I was talking about actual video games. I haven't paid much attention to video games in a really long time, precisely because of things like this. As such, I don't have a particularly good example, but I do recall seeing this trend creep in. I'd see people at award shows talking about making the player feel powerful. I'd watch developer videos in which people talked about how cool or powerful they wanted the player to feel, and it usually involved shoving cheap bullshit in where it didn't belong. It's a simple case of style over substance, but in a way that can be detrimental to the game.

The main case that I cared about (and am still mad about nine years later) is the Thief reboot. That game had a lot of mistakes, including giving Garrett special powers that allowed you to stop using your brain. Why should you have to look around for loot? Just use your magical bullshit powers. Worried about traps? Just use your magical bullshit powers. Not sure how to progress? Don't want to have to aim a bow through skill alone? Want to be artificially better at stealth by x%? Magical bullshit powers! Don't you feel so cool?

Precisely none of that belonged. Thief, though clearly aged and primitive, is good precisely because it isn't modern. It's the antithesis of modern. It doesn't need to give you cinematic takedowns, or have you traverse burning rooftops against the clock. You're supposed to be still, patient, quiet and clever. You're supposed to be weak and vulnerable. It's supposed to be just you, your tools, your environment, and your resourcefulness. But that's not cool, right? Today, you need to be a superpowered action hero who "steals to live", and keeps all of the really good loot in his Batman lair. Instead of selling it. Like a thief.