Controversy Clocking Episode 9: The entrance of the shoot-n-loot sub-genre

The current console generation has played things relatively safe with shooters continuing to push the biggest sales. In amongst the heavyweight military shooters that shift big sales every year, another sub-genre has formed, that of the loot-based shooter; in recent years it has become an amalgamation of the worst trends in gaming, some of which I have previously mentioned on this blog. It’s a formula that has manipulated consumers into paying for a poor value product and parts of the industry are beginning to gravitate towards it, putting out their own imitations in pursuit of profits.

In 2014, Bungie and Activision’s Destiny was released; as the most anticipated game of that year, it stood as the most successful new IP, later coming in as the third bestselling game in the United States. Of course, success breeds competition and other companies have gravitated towards the sub-genre of shoot-n-loot and its specific formula; a quasi-MMO set in an “open world” strung together with repetitive grindy gameplay towards the goal of unlocking the best loot which is often randomly determined. The precursor to this sub-genre was Gearbox’s Borderlands, beginning in 2009; it was released at a time when ways of nickling and diming the player weren’t viewed as top priorities and as a result, the series drew a strong following for its wacky personality and rewarding loot-based gameplay. There weren’t any obstacles preventing the game from latching onto the player and pulling them into the action.

Nowadays with profits being the primary focus, companies feel they can make a fairly bog standard shoot-n-loot game while putting in less effort; instead they hype up the game at events and press releases, overpromising and underdelivering in the process. The narratives in these games have become bland and uninteresting, the game worlds almost completely devoid of anything interesting to do and the focus on multiplayer often goes towards uninspired, repetitive mission design that has players taking on the same mobs of enemies repeatedly, only with increasing health bars that take longer to chip off. This sub-genre incorporates some of the most egregious business practices in the industry; a frustrating loot system that emulates gambling, a detailed road-map of pre-order bonuses and future paid DLC and microtransactions that bait players into paying real money when they grow tired of the endless grind, something entirely based on numbers and statistics, rather than player skill. Whenever a player completes a mission in a game such as Destiny or The Division, the rewards given are often entirely luck-based and the frustration of getting a lacklustre item compels them to continue the grind. While player counts do slope off over time for this sub-genre, they nevertheless have a real knack for duping people into paying full price on launch, practically guaranteeing strong early sales.

The most disappointing aspect of these lazy products is that they often top the sales charts as gamers blindly follow the hype and put down their money, only to be met with a product that becomes dull and monotonous after the first five to ten hours. The recently released Ghost Recon: Wildlands has become the highest-selling game of 2017 so far, beating out the likes of Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Horizon Zero Dawn. Both Wildlands and 2016’s The Division are essentially carbon copies of Destiny’s formula with Ubisoft’s stamp placed on them. They’re competently designed but woefully hollow in their execution; as long as the gaming community continues to support these lazily produced titles, there’s a chance that other companies may want in on the easy cash-grabbing tactics. This in turn will result in less innovation, fewer risks and the chance of future AAA titles blending together.