High Expectations

In an industry where a million-seller is generally considered a modest success (at least for most games), the fact that Take Two is disappointed with 8 1/2M copies of GTA 4 is… disturbing.

Grading On A Curve

I mentioned in some earlier, rather negative, Spore comments that the reviewers seemed to be grading it on a curve, and that it didn’t seem particularly polished; the game seemed to get big points for trying to do something rather than succeeding at it.  This Frankenreview from Kotaku seems to back up that assertion - a few quotes: “While Spore’s got its highs and lows as a game, it’s still a genuinely new and interesting piece of software” (1Up), “All along we’ve known that Spore’s ambitious design demanded so much of the developer that it had to - and of course wanted to - pass some of that onto you, and perhaps the flaws that endured are symptoms of that extensive, intricate development and infrastructure” (Eurogamer).  Comments seem somewhat negative as well, indicating that I might be on to something. 

But the specifics of this particular game are less interesting to me than the curve notion, which shows up more now that I look for it.  Braid was universally lauded not just for being a good game (although lots of people loved it for that) but because it showed that games could be ambitious.  GTA 4, which I didn’t much care for as a game, was a grand exercise in narrative experiment.  I’m sure we could find more examples if we went looking.  At first glance, this seems universally negative: consumer reviews are putatively there to tell us what games we should buy - in other words, what’s fun enough to pay for - not what is artistically meritorious.  Yet there are other strands here too.

Now that developers get rewarded based on review scores, there’s a case to make for grade inflation.  If we agree that experiments are good, leading us to new opportunities and ideas that need to exist for games to innovate successfully, we should encourage even failed experiments.  I want the Will Wrights of the world out there making games like Spore, not because I think it’s a great, or even particularly good, game, but because someone needs to do it… even if they only succeed half the time.  This may render reviews less useful if you fail to read the actual text but the good might outweigh the bad here.

So is it OK to mark up a game that tries too hard and fails?  Perhaps, as long as we’re aware of what we’re doing.

(By the way, for an alternate take on Spore - one that is thoughtful and balanced - check out some of Kieron Gillen’s early thoughts at RPS.  I don’t necessarily agree with him completely, and the full verdict is still forthcoming, but he raises some very good points.)

Consistency Hobgoblins

I don’t want to make too big a deal about this, but this Multiplayer Blog post about the Far Cry 2 map got me thinking about consistent metaphors in games.  Stephen Totilo asks whether the map is the best, due mainly to two features: it’s dynamic and displays points of interest as you progress , and it gets “lowered” in your character’s hand so you can reference it as you move.  The thing that bothered me about this, though, is that it seems sort of inconsistent; as if the designers failed to ask if they were trying to provide a map, or simply to depict one.

What I mean by this is this: if you’re going to try to provide a useful player map, it seems like there are a number of useful features you could provide - but they would all be centered around usability.  Do they enable the player to better locate himself and others?  I could see something like movable/placeable minimaps, color-coding, annotation, and so on being a part of that.  In fact, looking like a real-world map would be entirely optional.  Conversely, if you’re trying to depict a map, of the sort the FC2 character might have, you would presumably need to keep only those features that such a map would be able to possess.  That means no scrolling or dynamic features; looking like a map would be the only real criterion. 

The FC2 map seems to mix these two.  There’s nothing really wrong with this, of course, but it seems difficult to laud a map that is neither as useful as it might be if it weren’t trying to be realistic nor as real-world as it might be if that were the primary focus.  Similar issues arise with a number of other games.  Consider, for example, those that either try to eliminate the HUD or load it up with Mechwarrior-type features to mimic a real mech… none of them are particularly uncompromising when it comes to consistency.  Both make compromises to improve ease of play.  Again, that’s not a big deal; I’d much prefer a game that’s fun to one that’s consistent.  But I don’t know that you can make a legitimate value judgment about either approach - one isn’t better than the other, just different.

Everyone Loves Complaints

Insult Swordfighting lists its top 3 game pet peeves: a bad camera, long opening cinematics, and infrequent save points.  Since it’s Labor Day here in the US, and gaming news is sparse (not counting the bits of PAX news still trickling out), I thought I’d list my own:

• Games that take forever to start.  This is similar to the opening cinematic lament, but in general, I don’t like when I have to complete a “training” mission to acclimate myself to the game for a long time before actually playing it.
• Games that have “one-time-only” easter eggs.  By this I mean games where you can only obtain certain items or unlockables at a single point in the game, and if you miss them, you have to restart from the beginning to obtain them.  Metroid Prime scans, Final Fantasy power weapons, I’m looking at you.
• Absurd easter eggs.  Hidden secrets you can only find if you’re either 1) insane, or 2) prone to consulting a walkthrough.  The cloud star in Braid comes to mind.
• Unskippable cutscenes.  Bonus demerits if you have to watch the same cut scene leading up to a boss every single time you die.
• Cheating games.  I hate being punished for being good at a game - If I’m two laps ahead in Mario Kart, the other racers had damn well better lose.
• Games that fall victim to routine.  An example: I love Zelda.  It’s my favorite Nintendo franchise.  But every so often, I want to yell at Nintendo to break up the formula just a little bit.  I can sketch out the basic elements of a Zelda game from memory, and that’s not a problem… but the structure of the game is so rigid that it constricts gameplay.  I know that the dungeon item is going to be used extensively in that dungeon but never again, or only at specific, easily understood points in the overworld.  I know that I can kill the boss using some combination of the sword and the dungeon item, but no other ingenuity or item will be required.  I know I’ll have a long beginning that requires me to learn how to play the game anew, despite the fact that every Zelda has played pretty much the same way from the beginning.  I know there will be a set number of “beginning” dungeons, followed by obtaining some new upgraded sword and ending with a series of final dungeons, and that those dungeons will follow a set structure (Water, Fire, etc.).  I love old franchises, but periodically, they need to try to keep themselves genuinely fresh.

Anyone else have some pet peeves?

A PSA

I’m always a little surprised to discover that people aren’t aware of the gimmick at the heart of crane games like this one.  They’re basically slot machines - there’s a computer inside that determines the number of attempts required before the crane hand becomes stiff.  As a result, unless you’ve cracked the code, most of the times you try to grab something, your crane will slip off limply.  Sure, there’s some skill involved, but only if you also happen to get lucky.

Better Too Human Review

I apologize to keep writing about this game that seemingly no one cares about, but Cisco had asked me what I liked about the game in my last post, and I tried to explain but then further fumbled the answer by getting extremely wordy.

So, with that said, Brian Crecente of Kotaku, a far better writer than I, has posted a fair review that I think pretty much nails my own feelings about the game as well (unfinished for myself, so far).

The Thought Behind Mega Man 9

An interesting interview with MM9 producer Hironobu Takeshita.

Misguided Moralizing

So a lot of people are talking about Jonathan Blow’s recent speech on game design and how story can conflict with gameplay.  (Braid is coming out this week… and the artist is a guy I went to high school with.)  They’re generally very positive about the examples he uses, but to be honest with you, I think Blow is quite misguided in how he views the impact of such decisions - at least in practice.

Take, for example, his Bioshock discussion:

“[T]here’s a ‘Little Sister problem’ in altruism versus balance. Blow noted that there’s only a marginal difference in the rewards you receive, no matter whether you choose to rescue or kill the Little Sisters. The game mechanics are telling you that it doesn’t matter which way you choose.  ‘So effectively, the game says that the Little Sister doesn’t matter, while the plot says that it does matter.’ He suggested that ‘…this is disingenuous [and] robs the game of its emotional impact and potential.’”

I completely disagree. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Famicomity

It’s been a slow day today as I start wrapping up my work over here in Korea.  So I appreciate long, rambling retrospectives like Jeremy Parish’s meditation on the Famicom, the latest installment of which can be found here (and I mean long and rambling in the most complimentary sense).  The series won my heart by referencing Little Nemo, which I think is perhaps one of the most under-rated games on the NES.  It also touches on Clash at Demonhead, a game that Nintendo Power made me want passionately, but which proved underwhelming when I finally got to try it out, years later, on an emulator.

More Miniposts (#?)

• An amusing take on the differences between Atari box art and Atari games, from Insult Swordfighting.  The post is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the poster doesn’t mention explicitly that perhaps the reason the art was so superior to the game graphics was because the latter couldn’t keep up and needed some way to sell themselves visually.

• Also from IS, a meditation on the permissibility of “cheating” in tough games - apropos of my prior comments on game puzzles.

• Another installment of the Game Anthropologist, which has been fascinating me for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.

• A post at GameLife indicates that, as I had suggested earlier, Nintendo is going to have a very hard time even meeting expectations for the next generation of its console, let alone topping the Wii.

• Can Diablo III survive a more “colorful” - i.e., less darkly Gothic - art style?  My suspicion is yes, although it starts blurring the lines between a Diablo feel and a Guild Wars-style experience.