By the time this is posted, the Xbox One will be out and the launch games will be available for the general public. While I do not intend on picking up a system until something exclusive I want is out (Halo, Gears of War, Panzer Dragoon Saga HD, Phantom Brave Zero, Journey to Silius II: Judgment Day, etc.) I still enjoy reading all about the new system and launch games.
So far, while I'm sure I'd play Killer Instinct and Panzer Drago-... um, Crimson Dragon, no exclusives have me regretting my initial PS4 preference. Although in fairness, Resogun is the only Sony exclusive I'm sold on for now or the announced future. The launch lineup for both systems seem to hold few surprises in terms of releases or review scores. However, after reading a few write-ups on Ryse: Son of Rome I was immediately inspired to write about the relationship between what a game provides, what it is expected to provide, and how it is reviewed in our modern era.
I'd first like to note that after seeing the gameplay of Ryse demoed, I had little desire to play it. It wasn't about graphics, setting, or motion controls. As I watched, I could appreciate what this game was offering, and I simply had no interest in it. I've enjoyed melee combat games, historical narrative games, and even 'quick time event' gameplay. But watching Ryse, I just didn't think the game was for me, no matter how well designed or produced. I've felt the same way about the majority of sports titles, realistic racing games like Forza and Gran Turismo, and even critical successes like Grand Auto IV and V. Are they good games? I'm sure they mostly are, even if they are not for me. In fact I still pick many of them up, just to tinker and give them a chance, or more likely to let friends and family play them.
It was Kotaku's review that got me thinking.
http://kotaku.com/ryse-so...-kotaku-review-1468780085Every other review I read commented on how nice the game looks and how well it runs, and yet how shallow, boring, short, and repetitive the game is. Kotaku's Stephen Totilo wrote something different; he genuinely enjoyed the experience. Interestingly, he didn't argue with the critique leveled against it. But in a true display of the subjective nature of boredom and entertainment, Totilo not only had fun with the game (while admitting the gruesome in-game actions were disturbing), but he referenced it as an example of how the new generation of hardware could be used to heighten current gameplay experiences. His last statement in the review sums up his thoughts:
"I'd like to think that Ryse is an example of the kind of fresh re-thinking we'll experience on the new generation of consoles. Why not move the camera in? Why not set the game in ancient Rome? Why not let players yell at archers to lob in some support? Actually, no, never do that last one again. Ryse arrives with low expectations and demonstrates that looks can make a difference in gameplay. That's a next-gen upgrade I can enjoy."
Totilo didn't argue about the game's length. He didn't counter that the game was more complicated than other reviewers gave it credit for. He didn't ignore what other critics faulted. He simply seemed to take it for what it was and enjoy the experience.
I thought about this while playing one of the best reviewed games on the two new systems, Need For Speed: Rivals. Other than Resogun, it's what I've enjoyed playing the most. Yet one of the reasons I like playing it so much is that it knows what it is and what to focus upon; cops and high-speed getaways, with a heavy dose of Criterion's 'Battle Racing.' Oh, there's time trials and point-to-point standard racing, but the Alldrive connectivity and entire game design wraps around the concept that a cops vs. racers chase can, and does, spontaneously happen at any moment. It's pretty much all there is to the game.
No extra modes. No Rally racing, drifting mini-games, or a little guy jumping out and running around. In fact, the biggest criticism I've read about it is that it does pretty much the one thing, and that's mostly it, and so it will get repetitive.
And I just have a blast with it! Here's a game that knows what it is, and refines it to the expense of everything else. It knows what it is, what it does, and it does it best. It matches my current interest and I have so much fun with it. It is to me, at the moment, what it sounds like Ryse is to Totilo. Both of us will get our fill and move on to other games, and that's fine. No problem there.
Let's use the 'way-back-when' machine for a different example. I played an uncomfortable amount of Hunt for Red October on the NES back in my youth. I didn't think it was a great game even then, but I enjoyed it and was determined to master that side-scrolling, pseudo-shooter submarine game. I practiced and practiced. I succeeded in memorizing level after level of enemy placement and weapon usage, dodging the many obstacles of enemy and landscape with that clunky grey tube sprite, until reaching the last level. And then out of nowhere, for the very last part of the game, it bizarrely changed into a run-and-gun platformer taking place inside the sub. With completely different play control, a little bearded guy had to shoot many, many more cooks than appeared in the movie while jumping to platforms and diffusing bomb after bomb after bomb after bomb. Nothing in the hours of mastering a completely different game prepared the player for the very last chapter, which forced the player to literally play a completely different game to complete it.
And it's not the only game to pull such a last minute out-of-character bait and switch. Lost Planet is a modern example. Sometimes such out-of-the-blue forced changes are peppered throughout a game, arguably for better (Halo: Reach's random Space Flight) or worse (Castle Crasher's random Volleyball and Alien Hominid's 'Simon' minigames.) When implemented as interesting, optional stuff to do (SNES's Legend of the Mystical Ninja had tons of random, fun diversions) that are not required for continued progression, such diversions can liven up a game and make it's universe feel more complete. And some games, such as the classics Rocket Knight Adventures and Mr. Bones, are more akin to a gaming potpourri of varied gameplay challenges instead of a singular gameplay experience. Most recently, the (IMHO) excellent Beyond: Two Souls wrapped it's entire game design around unpredictable gameplay experiences.
In other words, I'm not knocking variety and spicing up gameplay. But if a game is going to jettison the skillset a player has invested for progression, the transition should be necessary, smooth if narratively possible, and not a brick wall that easily makes a player lose interest. I never did finish Hunt for Red October. That last stage left a bad taste and I just didn't have a desire to play anymore. If the game was going to toss a surprise ending (which is fine) there should be some method of keeping the gameplay transition from being so jarring. I put so much time into it because I knew what I was playing, and the game (until the end) rewarded my investment. Ideally a gamer looks at a game, develops an idea on whether or not that game looks fun to them, and then accepts or turns down what the game is selling as an experience.
So, that brings us back to Ryse. I hope that every gamer that looks at the gameplay and thinks it would be fun does not get discouraged by bad reviews and folks telling them it's not worth it. It may not be the game for me, and many others from what I gather, but then the games I like can bore some folks to tears. (It's an unspoken house rule that I will not subject my Beloved to any more hours of staring at Final Fantasy Tactics.) I have no doubt that there are other gamers like Totilo who will play and enjoy Ryse, and I'm happy for them. If I tried to change everything that would make Ryse a 'fun' game for me, it very likely would no longer be what those individuals are looking for, and it wouldn't be an 'improved' game for it.
I like that Need For Speed Rivals doesn't bloat itself with gameplay that takes me out of what I want to play. If I want rally, I'll play the Dirt or RalliSport Challenge series. If I want a sim I'm play Gran Turismo or just fall asleep. (Kidding. I used to play them. 4 was my favorite.) If I want something less grounded, I'll play Wipeout XL/3/HD. I don't want a game that tries to stuff them all into one at the expense of some, but then I won't knock it if that game is fun for someone else.
In the end, as always, don't be bullied into another's opinions. If it looks fun, give it a shot. If not, let the next person make their own decision. There are too many games for too many different types of people to make silly assumptions about what will be fun for anyone, much less everyone.
