Remember when it was immediately obvious, even before you saw a screenshot, how a video game would play?




Wait.  No, I mean when games were more honest with selling what they were about-

 

Alright, maybe there are exceptions, but I'm talking about when it was easy to determine what kind of game you were getting just by-

 

Truthfully, with all of the media surrounding new video games, we're no longer restricted to psychedelic artwork and rare gameplay screenshots to help determine our gaming purchases.  For years, gamers just kind of hoped the gameplay was fun since there weren't many ways to determine how a game would play.  It only takes a few minutes to understand the rules for real-world games of bowling, golf, or running a marathon, but video game abstractions of these sports can play completely different depending on each game.


Nobody likes a bait-and-switch, but for the first few decades, as new genres and gameplay ideas developed,  it meant a lot of experiments and not just a few expensive let-downs for gamers .  Developing genre terms (however loosely used) did help, such as "side-scrolling adventure," "shooter," "RPG," and "weird little guy rolling up a ball of stuff to replace the stars man what are those Japanese developers drinking?"  And after awhile, it became much simpler to grasp what kind of gaming preference fit what kind of gamer.

Of course, then the bait-and-switch became much more intentional.  Anyone remember this commercial?

You know what's missing in that trailer?  The other 99% of the game that actually looked like this:

No matter how you feel about the game, it sold a ton of PlayStations.  Folks like me had grown up with the series and knew what to expect, but there were a lot of kids who hadn't seen a game since Super Mario Bros. and only recognized the term 'RPG' from Rambo movies.  They begged for this amazing new game for a Christmas or birthday, excitedly popped it in, and never make it past the first disc. 

This was, of course, before gamers could just watch an entire game on YouTube or read dozens of previews that broke down every element of an upcoming game.  By the time we adjust for inflation, add cheaper download-only titles and Steam sales, and consider that even AAA titles tend to come down in price very quickly, with a touch of research, gamers are able to maximize their dollars-to-entertainment preference.  Given that each gamer is different, and there are countless titles to explore, there's no lack of ways to scratch that particular gameplay itch.  In order to get the game you want, you just have to take the time to know what you're getting.  I still say Zelda II: The Adventure of Link is a great game, but at the time everyone was expecting more overhead, less-jumpy adventuring.

And yet, there is a very vocal group of gamers and game critics that lambaste any game for not being everything to everyone.  Not every game needs or even benefits from online multiplayer, an open-world design, various gameplay styles or minigames, a "new game plus" replay feature, or even an extended gameplay length.  In fact, much of the time such additions are detrimental to the overall intended game design.

I'm a huge fan of the Gears of War games.  I just find the gameplay, especially co-op, to be a ton of fun.  I've been through each on "Insane".  And you know what wasn't fun?  The random, non-optional vehicle segments.  Here we are, slamming through the refined gameplay of cover-based chest-high-wall mania, and suddenly I'm having to be pinpoint accurate with an APC turret and memorize dozens of spawn points, just to get back to the normal gameplay.  Or, I'm reaching the epic conclusion of Halo 4 when I'm suddenly flying a spaceship, which controls nothing like the space marine I just spent a dozen hours mastering and requires (especially on "Legendary") a skill-set unlike anything I'd used in the game thus far.

Hey, I'm all for spicing up the game and tossing new things in; just make it optional, based on skills the game already required me to refine, or make it easy enough that I don't get frustratingly stuck and unable to finish.  Nobody wants to be in first place on Forza Horizon 2 only to have the game expect you to play Just Dance for the last lap.  Ok, that would actually be kind of cool.  Kinda.  But unless your game is designed to compliment various gameplay styles (like the interesting experiments of Mr. Bones or Quantic Dream's games), it needs to be true to itself.

When it was first released, Wolfenstein: The New Order was frequently criticized for not including any multiplayer, even as the campaign was praised as being an excellent romp.  Many a review and gamer chanted something along the lines of "No MP, no buy," even as Bioshock 2, God of War: Ascension, Tomb Raider and many other campaign-focused games' multiplayer lobbies sat empty.  I'm not saying that the multiplayer component to these games are devoid of merit; I know I for one had no interest when the multiplayer addition of Mass Effect 3 was announced, but I ended up playing and enjoying it for several months after I finished the campaign.  But these added features should be considered nifty bonuses, not required expectations.

I absolutely enjoyed Batman: Arkham Asylum, but the followup Arkham City's open world design distracted me to the point that I lost interest in the game.  Same with the surprise hit Darksiders and its (IMHO) bloated sequel.  I'm not taking away from how good these sequels were, but for me personally, adding an open-world design made it feel less focused and it took too long to make real progression.  Obviously others disagree, and that's fine; however, the 'more is better' idea in gaming often includes an open-world design, and I know I'm not the only one who doesn't see it that way.

Our own Fleach wrote an excellent article on how the length of games is a poor indicator of value.  (http://www.rfgeneration.c...s-it-Even-Matter-2989.php)  Regardless of its "short" campaign, I for one really enjoy The Order: 1886.  I was expecting a cinematic and graphically gorgeous linear action game, and that's exactly what I got.  My beloved was so impressed, she's going through it too.  Is the game worth 'full' price?  I'm sure it isn't to many a gamer, but I knew what I was getting and it is to me.  I sure wouldn't pay $60 for a new Madden, but I don't doubt that many a sports-minded gamer gets their money's worth out of it every year.

Another great example of folks griping about limited 'value' is the recent release Evolve.  Now I enjoy me some Left 4 Dead co-op, so when the studio behind that series announced their new 4 verses 1, hunters versus monster asymmetrical multiplayer game, I was very interested.  However, many a voice lamented that the game design was way too limited, too boring, too focused on a single idea, etc.  You know what?  Turtle Rock Studios took a simple idea, and jam-packed it with intelligent and interesting game design decisions.  Each of the three monsters (and at least one more on the way) require a completely different play-style.  Not only do the four hunters have interesting, co-op focused gear and increased mobility options, but each class of hunter has different available characters, each with their own upgradable loadout.  The game has a nuanced and varied perk system.  The art team created an original frontier, sci-fi universe full of little details while making it feel familiar and identifiable.  Much like the studio's other series, there is more going on in the background and the story is mostly told through friendly radio chatter that changes with each mission and character combination.  There are lots of varied maps, dynamic weather, and interesting environments.  The 5-day/mission campaign mode alternates different maps, objectives, and environmental parameters of advantages and disadvantages that vary with each play-through.  There is so much to learn and so many skills to develop!  Yet even with a supposed 800,000 variables that freshen up the experience every time, the game is unfairly criticized as being straight-forward and limited. 

The first time I played, I chose a medic character, because hey, how hard can it be to just run behind people and heal them?  Oh, what's all this stuff?  A jet-pack, cool, I can dash around or long-jump.  Thanks, Elysium/Advanced Warfare. Hey, there's my medgun.  I'll shoot you to health, that's amusing.  Also, a healing burst?.....check, makes sense.  What's this?  A tranq gun that slows the monster down?  Yeah, should probably learn to use that, my team will expect me to- whoa, I get a sniper rifle that creates weak-points on the monster for my team?!  I'm carrying all this around all the time, having to learn when and how to use each just so my team survives?  I'm the medic!  What kind of toys does, say, the Support class characters get?  Did I mention there are two other medics and each character has unique equipment, guns, and abilities?  And three other classes of hunters, each with three characters, designed for specific roles?  And each can be leveled up through use?  And each class is designed to integrate together?  And people were saying this game is more derivative and limited than, say, Call of Duty?  My point (besides the fact that I was really, really happy with Evolve) is that a developer can take a great premise, focus on making it the best experience possible, and some gamers can turn their nose up at it only because the game stays true to it's intent.

 I miss light-gun games.  Now there's a genre that knows its purpose for existence. Simple, straight forward, skill-based, easy-to-learn, and almost anyone can have fun.  They may not have epic 40-hour campaigns, but man if they aren't great when you're in the mood for them.  From the original shoot-and-hide rhythm of the Time Crisis series to the zany originality of the Point Blank series, there are fewer examples of a more pure fun gaming experience.


There's a time, place, and person for just about every game.  Evolve certainly isn't for everyone, but it's not made to be.  Some folks don't like Telltale's choose-your-own-adventure storybook-style gameplay, but that doesn't mean the developer should shoehorn a progressive-unlocking multiplayer system into the next Walking Dead.  If you couldn't have fun with Night Trap or Sewer Shark, you're not likely to enjoy Five Nights at Freddy's, but that doesn't mean those of us that do are wrong or the genre doesn't represent "real games," whatever that means.  If you recognize it's not for you, there's no shortage of available video games.  Why would a responsible critic ever begin a negative review of a game with a comment like "I don't normally like these types of games...?"

No problem, just let someone who does like those types of games give it a shot.

Permalink | Comments [7] | Digg This Article | Tweet