Square Pegs, Round Holes

I’ve definitely noticed that my gaming tastes have changed over the years.  For example, I no longer have the stomach for many RPGs; I can’t get into the Square-led art style in fashion these days, with its gender-indeterminate leads and angst-ridden plotlines, and reading that much repetitive text (or worse, watching twelve minute movies) just isn’t something I can really enjoy any longer. 

At the same time, I’m a little puzzled by the complaint that Lost Garden raises here.  The author notes up front that the problems he noted in Mario Galaxy are really the result of his own “defects” rather than those of the game.  But he then proceeds to criticize a number of elements of the game itself, from its difficulty to its genre.  Part of this complaint, I think, stems from his disappointment that he didn’t enjoy a game that so many people loved.  But that doesn’t really excuse the complaint.

Take the genre issue.  The high rating of SMG is attributed to self-selection bias - how many reviewers, he asks, are casual gamers or have never played a 3D platformer?  On the most basic level, this is a reasonable complaint: people did like Galaxy because it’s the type of game that they like to play.  Yet moving beyond that superficial point is problematic, an exercise in tautology.  A genre is a self-evident thing - the fact that SMG is a 3D platformer is obvious (if you’re concerned with such things, a minute of Googling would provide this information).  It makes little sense for a reviewer to approach the game as if it should be something else - needless to say, if I made my assessments of Final Fantasy based on the belief that it should be more like the puzzle games I enjoy, or because Street Fighter didn’t have enough tactical strategy elements, I would lead a very disappointed life.  A 3D platformer should be evaluated on its merits as a 3D platformer.  If you don’t like those games, don’t play them - don’t complain about the fundamental features of the genre just because they don’t resemble your favorite.  And if the games don’t provide a demo, rent them first.

The difficulty question has a similar problem.  Platformers are games that depend on reflexes and coordination.  If you added dynamic difficulty levels, or avoid linking success with progress, you cheapen the notion of challenge in the first place.  This is not to say that variable difficulty levels have no place in gaming - or that games need to be difficult to be valuable (I hated Shattered Soldier because it’s ridiculously difficult).  But preventing the player from requiring a given level of skill to advance means that there’s no satisfaction in overcoming obstacles in the first place. 

Ultimately, I think the author of this article makes some good points.  I’d love more widespread use of demos - they make sense for customers and they make sense for the companies that would sell more games if people had the chance to try them out.  But at a certain point, we need to accept the fact that we prefer certain types of games over others - and that those tastes can evolve over time.  We can’t try to fit square pegs in round holes, or the overall diversity of gaming will suffer.  There are plenty of games of all types - including casual titles - to go around.