The first console I was introduced to was the Intellivision, and the first game I can remember playing on it was Burger Time. I later made the transition from what I can only classify as primitive platformers into a more modern iteration with the Nintendo Entertainment System and Super Mario Bros. I made the jump from platforming to strategy when I later acquired a Macintosh and a copy of Syndicate, and from strategy to scrolling shooters with a copy of Biohazard for the Sega Genesis. From the Genesis I transitioned into the Super Nintendo and Role-Playing Games, starting with Final Fantasy IV and carrying on into Chrono Trigger (both of which have been recently re-released on the Nintendo DS). Out of the Super Nintendo, I moved into first person shooters with an early PC and a copy of Quake II, and from that I came back to the now legendary Sega Dreamcast with the action-adventure platforming hybrid of Sonic Adventure 2. For all I've experienced over the years I eventually settled on the Windows PC as my gaming platform of choice, and I've never looked back. Well, outside of this and every other instance of my writing where I recount my experiences with classic games.
I've been a gamer for 18 years now across eleven platforms on top of the PC. I took an inventory of my PC games as I was cleaning my apartment last month and discovered that I own more than 150 games. From Quake, to to Planescape, to Thief, to Rainbow Six, to Warcraft, to Indigo Prophecy, I've seen just about all the PC has had to offer. As technology improves I find gameplay has remained startlingly similar from one iteration of a genre to another. I've played Quake I and Quake IV, compared Doom I against III, seen Diablo turn into Titan Quest, and watched Warcraft evolve into Supreme Commander, and smoothly transitioned from each to the other. Outside of the more innovative titles this year like Mirror's Edge, there are patterns to find and tropes to retread in all of the newer titles of this generation. One of the less desirable consequences of having so little to learn in jumping from one game to another is simply my disenchantment with the medium. How does Rogue Trooper differ from Halo? Or Thief with Splinter Cell? A different setting and different weapons. A handful of gameplay mechanics and a new spin on an old trope doesn't get me quite as excited as it used to so I find myself approaching newer games now with a more critical set of eyes than I once would have, and I've started to appreciate video games in an entirely new way.
Being critical of a game doesn't mean you have to dislike it; quite the contrary. I've recently returned to a number of older games like Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader and Thief: Deadly Shadows with new eyes; an expedition into weaker graphics on antiquated engines in search of whatever it was that made them magical - or perhaps simply passable - when they were new. I derive just as much pleasure from the critical analysis of an older game today as I would have had playing them when they were totally new to me (and often times far more pleasure than I would have had attempting to find the 'fun' in some of these 2 star titles) and it allows me the opportunity to see the industry attempting to innovate in retrospect. Not every old RPG is Planescape: Torment and not every Adventure game is Psychonauts, but every game is built from the ground up by a development team with their own ideas and unique implementations. Being able to appreciate the finer details and squeeze the fun out of a stone is a part of what makes gaming such an entertaining hobby for me, and is a definite factor in providing some of my perspective on the industry.
The transition from a gamer into a critic was an organic one. Once any person acquires enough experience in a particular field to start seeing trends he finds himself linking them together to find patterns. It's natural to become curious as to the 'how' or the 'why' of those things we enjoy to observe around us, and it's only one small step from a casual observation over to a critical one. With so many derivative titles stocking the shelves this year I find myself experiencing a greater sense of satisfaction just explaining what it is I enjoy about games than I would have playing them. To some, sitting around and writing up an analysis for a video game might be interpreted as a rationalization wasted time, wasted to the game at hand and lost to games overall. There's some truth to that, but ultimately that isn't the way I see it. I see it as an opportunity to embrace something I have a passion for; an opportunity to roll up my sleeves and dig deeper into an art form I have an intense appreciation for. It allows me to break down all of the little details that make a good game great and a deficient game defective. If I should ever enter into the industry and attempt to channel my excitement into employment, the knowledge I glean from my critical observations and the secrets I uncover from my late night play sessions will prove invaluable to me. We'll see if it all amounts to much in the end, but for now, it's a hell of a hobby, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Welcome to the Symposium: A Discourse on Game Ratings
When you're out looking to purchase a video game, do you ever find yourself looking for reviews online? If you do, is there a specific rating underneath which you simply wont spend your money on a game? Shawn Elliott of 2k Boston, formerly of 1Up.com, has recently coerced a number of his colleagues to participate in public disquisition regarding a number of curiosities that have been raised over inside of the games journalism field, from how hype affects reviews to how those reviews affect consumer purchases. Shawn recently supplied the first piece of his symposium for public consumption here on Blogspot. Weighing in at just over 13,000 words (and still incomplete!) it's an enlightening, if a bit beastly, read.
Opinions are primarily divided over the issue of whether or not review scores detract from the reviews themselves. Are the scores there just to give readers something to complain about on the boards as they attempt to leverage that rating against another game in comparisons?
When scores come into play there is more at stake than reader opinions. Pay bonuses can be determined by how well a game scores on metacritic, marketing coverage can be restricted from websites that provide low scores, and development teams can be broken apart in part based in perceived performance. When games score well, everybody gets a piece of the pie. When games do poorly, everybody aches.
Opinions are primarily divided over the issue of whether or not review scores detract from the reviews themselves. Are the scores there just to give readers something to complain about on the boards as they attempt to leverage that rating against another game in comparisons?
Jeff Gerstmann, Giant Bomb: Well, I won't deny that scores stir up message boards and social networks and such. But to claim that's the only reason they exist is a pretty narrow, jaded view. I think scores are primarily there to serve as shorthand for folks that won't or can't read the full review. They're meant to serve as part of the summary. A deck, a score, and, depending on your publication's review style, some pros and cons or whatever.I don't believe there is any denying that those of us actively seeking out a score for a game we're deciding whether or not to purchase are looking for "the jist" of the review, and will, at times, use those scores as a buyer's guide for those of us in a rush to figure out whether our favorite websites agree that a game is worth the $50 or $60 down. A question becomes raise, then, as to whether we actually read reviews on games we aren't already certain we intend to purchase from the get-go.
Shawn Elliott, 2K Boston: Some of us suggest that our audiences sees scores as buyers' advice. Actual sales rarely correlate with review scores in cases where games are not also heavily hyped and marketed. Increasingly, gamers pre-order games prior to the publication of reviews. Interactive demos allow our audiences to decide for themselves whether or not a game will be worth their dollars. In addition, word of mouth and message board discussions inform our potential audiences' purchasing decisions with an intimacy and directness that we cannot provide. Finally, review aggregation sites such as Metacritic mute the bias of individual reviewers and provide a bigger picture.The strong correlation between a video game's hype and sales provide a window through which to view an unfortunate reality of modern games journalism; regardless of just how well-received your Psychonauts or Planescape: Torment is, no one is even going to know it exists without the marketing to support it. If the only players reading your review are the ones who intended to purchase it from the beginning your influence only reaches as far as that particular game's advertising.
I suspect these circumstances suggest that our self-perception is, well—a throwback to a time when magazines and websites were gaming's gatekeepers.
When scores come into play there is more at stake than reader opinions. Pay bonuses can be determined by how well a game scores on metacritic, marketing coverage can be restricted from websites that provide low scores, and development teams can be broken apart in part based in perceived performance. When games score well, everybody gets a piece of the pie. When games do poorly, everybody aches.
Dan “Shoe” Hsu, Sore Thumbs: Shawn, that’s why this business is so messed up! Publishers want good reviews. Editors want exclusives. Magazines and websites want advertising. Advertisers want good reviews.The read is an entertaining and informative one, and I would strongly suggest that anyone with even a passing interest in games or games journalism glance over it. For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that scores should remain as a part of the review process, but could afford to be revised to provide a more qualitative analysis. Examine 1up.com and note that they use letter grading rather than number crunching to summarize their impressions of each game. I have an easier time understanding a B+ in the context of a review than I have trying to figure out whether a 7 is supposed to be 'fair' or a 'good.' When I review video games for my blogs I tend to assign two letter grades per title; I gave Spore a C for gameplay, which would be directed at the hardcore gaming crowd, and an A for its innovative and attractive features which provide more appeal to the casual crowd. Far be it for me to tell anyone how they should be reviewing their video games, but I can't help myself in feeling as though they're getting something wrong. Perhaps Shawn's symposium will result in an addendum or two to the way popular gaming websites handle their analysis. I look forward to reading more of this discussion as it unfolds.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Presenting the Presents: A late 2008 Video Games Guide for the Unassuming Consumer
While Fallout 3 tops my personal picks, the Wii has had a rough year for role-playing. It's also worth nothing that Mass Effect was released on the Xbox 360 in 2007, but it wasn't released for the PC until this year. If they haven't picked up a copy of the game for either system they're in for a cinematic treat. Chrono Trigger stands out ahead of the pack as well, a classic reconstructed from the old SNES role-playing adventure. If he hasn't played Chrono Trigger before, and he enjoys role-playing games, he requires this game.If you're having a spot of difficulty finding something to get for that gamer in your life this year, don't fret; there are a dozen or so holiday guides out there willing to help you get started (see IGN, 1Up, or Gamespy). This one in particular isn't so much a 'guide' as an eyeglass through which to view a few of the games that have come along this year which I feel merit some attention. There's a lot out there to choose from this year; so much, in fact, that might even be able to get away with taking a blind stab at an offering, though I wouldn't recommend it. Here's a short list of titles to keep an eye out for, and the platforms they've been released for. Do note that not every platform has a big contender for every category, and you should never purchase a video game just for the sake of purchasing a video game. It doesn't have to be in the all time hall of fame to warrant a purchase, but be sure to do your research whenever you're trying to decide on a title.First thing is first, determine what they want. If you'd prefer not to ask them directly, take a look into their video game collection. Do they have a lot of shooting titles like Halo and Resistance? Do they play strategy games on their PC like Supreme Commander and Civilizations? Determine what systems they own. If it isn't a Wii, PS3, Xbox 360, DS, or PSP, I can't help you. Go ahead and note down what they already own, and, if at all possible, determine which of those games they actually like. Just because they own Quantum of Solace doesn't mean they enjoy it.(Note that these links will take you to actual reviews for the game from Gamespy, not a metacritic page. I feel it is more important to be informed than to simply be correct, and it's important to understand the contents of the games you wish to purchase for those other than yourself. Come to think of it, you should probably understand what you're purchasing for yourself too.)--If you're looking for an Action title for the player who enjoys a firefight (See Halo, Resistance, Call of Duty 4) for that special somebody I'd advise you to take a look into the following:From zombies to Nazis these games will all have you unloading ammunition into your enemies, but take special note that *Left 4 Dead is designed as a four player cooperative experience. If your target gamer doesn't have online capabilities (Steam for PC or Xbox Live for Xbox) skip it. Resistance 2 and Call of Duty are both war games, and Dead Space is a survival horror action title which may be too scary for younger viewers. Watch those box ratings and stay informed.--What about the gamer who prefers to spend his days wandering around in every world but his own? For gamers who enjoy a Role-Playing experience (See Final Fantasy, Gothic, Ultima, or Chrono Trigger) this year has offered up some serious contenders:--How about an Action Adventure game? A running, jumping, sometimes hacking and slashing kind of action game (See Psychonauts, Prince of Persia, Star Wars: The Force Unleashed):There aren't too many killer Action Adventure games that I can draw to mind this year, but the ones that are out there are incredibly solid. LittleBigPlanet is by far the most innovative title of the year, allowing its user base to create and produce their own content to publish up into Sony's catalog, and to pull content created by other users into their own experience. Unfortunately it should also be noted that while this content is frequently reviewed by Sony administrators, questionable content can at times slip through the cracks, so some light parental guidance may be in order for children with online access through their PS3s. It's also worth nothing that*Mega Man 9 is throwback to the Nintendo Entertainment System more than a modern Action game, and I have experienced great difficulty in trying to locate a copy up to this point.--Do your loved ones love strategy games? Bright over brute, as they say; commanding armies while juggling the natural resources (See Warcraft, Command & Conquer, Rise of Nations, Civilization):Spore is a unique and fascinating title, supporting user created creatures, 5 uniquely designed phases of gameplay, and expecting expansion packs to be released fairly regularly for some time now into the future. Not a game I would recommend for the players out there who might identify themselves as the 'hardcore' but an entertaining diversion for casual gamers who enjoy the creativity the game affords. Civilization is designed for the hardcore turn-based strategy game crowd while Sins of a Solar Empire floats somewhere in the middle and enjoys a lower price tag either its more ambitious brothers.--And lastly we come to the miscellaneous and 'difficult to define' classification of video games; the open-ended, rhythm-based, brawling, racing games of which there are too few to merit their own category in listing. Titles that may apply to everyone or to no one in particular, casual and hardcore. Games such as:
--There are plenty of games out there on the market right now, and if you know what somebody wants, shoot for it. No matter how well it reviews or what you've heard about it some people are always going to hate it and some are going to love it. Never shop uninformed, and never pick up a video game just because of its box art. Familiarize yourself with each game's rating, which can be located on the cover of each box, and familiarize yourself with the gamer as well. $50 to $60 is a lot of money to be planting into somebody's hands come Christmas time and you want to be sure they'll get the most out of your investment. Also, if you aren't sure what to get, don't feel pressured to get a gamer a video game. He might appreciate the fact that you were willing to drop $60 on a brand new copy of Barnie Bedrock's Rubble Racing for his Playstation 3, but he'll feel fairly irked off when he realizes Gamestop will only offer him $30 of store credit for his trade-in.If you absolutely have to get something game related but you have no idea what to decide, consider a subscription to Gamefly. Gamefly is like Netflix for console kids, allowing you to recieve up to two games at a time through the mail, play them until you're finished with them, then send them back in to get two more. There is presently no equivalent service for PC games, so if your resident computer tech comes up on your giftlist, try a best buy giftcard, or maybe an audio book to listen to while he frags his friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)