The Game Critique

Why oh why do I do this to myself? I said that the last one would be the last one, but no. I go out to buy some chips late and I find myself thinking about concepts of the game design. My mind turns to something being debated now around Flower, most prominently over at Sexyvideogameland. The concept of the designer manipulating the player emotions, which in turn led me to a previous debate of the designer manipulating you into caring about a character. The dog from Fable II comes up a lot in this discussion. I have no opinion on it having not played the game. Then came Eleka from Prince of Persia.

Maybe this will get the game out of my system once and for all.

The designers intending you to care about Eleka. This is not conjecture, they have said so themselves. I never did care about her, in fact, I have stated that I was ambivalent about the whole game, but I could never figure out why. I loved the Prince of Persia series. I did so on the walk back and it comes down to the same problem I’ve had with the new game all along, the open world nature of the game. I could talk about he horrible choice in voice actors, the insipid dialogue or the ending, but all of those could have been done differently and not fixed it. Instead I will focus on two points that are at the core of game and where I think the real problem are.

First of all I did not care about the game. The reason I was ambivalent is that the game never told me I should be otherwise. Throughout the whole game you are bombarded with the knowledge that the world is about to end if Ahriman is released and regains his powers. His generals have already escaped and are corrupting the land as we speak. This is very evident as you go through and defeat the various corrupted and dodge the black goo and other traps. But once you’ve defeated, the Hunter, Alchemist, Concubine or Warrior and heal that area you are left with a peaceful land. The sun is shining, the birds are chirping, the grass is green and the water clear. It is as idyllic as it should be, so you move on to the next area. The problem is when you go back to a previous area. It’s not like you can’t either. The game invites you to revisit old areas, collecting light seeds or just enjoying the scenery. Excuse me I thought the world was ending. The game offers no threat to player for a majority of the game. Without a threat why am I motivated to fight on? Eleka’s constant insistence to continue on and stop Ahriman doesn’t endear her to me, it makes her an annoyance. I almost don’t believe her. I’m ambivalent, because I am not offered a reason not to be. If the game doesn’t offer a constant threat or at least the appearance of a threat then I’m not going to feel threatened.

Secondly, the designer’s made Eleka the new reset mechanic. Should you die, Eleka is there to save you and let you try again. Fair enough, the sands did the same thing in the previous trilogy. But there was a limit to how many uses there were. They became a carefully guarded commodity and it forced you to be smart about how you played. You could rewind time, but you could not afford to be reckless. It was there for quick fixes. In the new game, you can go crazy. Eleka will always be there to save you. You can be reckless in the game (that and I think it was there to cover up the design flaw they wont own up to of mapping too many moves to the same button that sends you into the abyss.) So if you can just keep falling and whatnot whenever you want then you aren’t grateful to be saved, you’re expectant. You no longer feel thankful to go back, but feel entitled. She is no longer the end she is the means.

This is why I was ambivalent about Prince of Persia. If the game is not going to care than neither will I. I have told anyone who would listen that I felt the first three games had crack baked directly into the discs the gameplay was so addictive. I always said to myself when I had to go, “one more wallrun, just one more.” Even Warrior Within with its unintuitive level design still made me want to run through the same death trap over and over. The new Prince of Persia also feels like they’ve baked crack into the disc only now its been a few years and buzz no longer comes, only apathy as something once great crumbles around you. I say I’m ambivalent about the game, but no matter how much time goes by I keep coming back to it. I can’t escape it. It’s like it hurt me on some emotional level. I see the greatness that it could have been, but instead all I only have are the broken promises.

(Since I am hard up for content I figured a weekly thing might be just the thing. When I described what I do here, one guy insisted that he write it. He submitted some posts and having read some of it, I now feel that this was a very bad idea. But I promised so this  will be on a trial basis and will need the following: )

Disclaimer: QWERTY’s opinions are not mine nor of the site’s. The psudonym QWERTY is used to protect the innocent.

(He also insisted that I have this be his debut rather than the post he submitted to me first. Why not? – The Swain)

Step 1: go to college

Step 2: call yourself a game critic, no proof of purchase necessary

Step 3: learn or befriend someone with basic wordpress skills, if you really want to be snazzy don’t use blogspot and splurge the extra 10 bucks on the domain name

Step 4: now play a video game

Step 5: find people who have also played this video game

Step 6: mix and match their opinions into your posts

Step 7: link like crazy

Step 8: come to the realization that you’re a sad and worthless parasite who leaches off the ideas of others you incorrigible, thieving hack

Step 9: troll 4Chan

Step 10: get a real job and forget any trumped up self-importance you think you have

Step 11: alternatively, latch on to someone else’s site, so when it inevitably goes down in flames you don’t get blamed for it and there’s the possibility of free cash

(I wonder if he’s the right man for the job? – The Swain)

In the gamer scheme of things I am a freak of nature. I finish nearly every game I buy. Weird right? The fact of the matter is that most narrative based games are not completed. It was considered an enormous success by the developers of Bioshock that 50% of those who played it reached the end. Even the Half-Life 2 episodes, which are only about 6 hours long and have extremely friendly level design aren’t finished more that that. It’s been compared to elsewhere, and for the life of me I wish I could remember where, to imagine if 50% of people walked out of a movie mid way through, every movie. It’s strange.

It begs the question: what drives a player to complete a game?

Obviously the answer is going to be different for every person. Not every aspect of every video game is going to appeal to every person in the same degree. Hell, not every video game appeals to every person. I’m not going to pretend I can break it down it wide ranging categories that cover the basics. Personally it’s the stories that drive me to finish games. I want to see what happens in the end, the gameplay is a means to that end. I recognize this; because I have played some god-awful video games that had little redeeming value and I have finished all of them, save for two types of instances. Instances where the game collapses in on itself in a wondering display of corrupted saves, code or disc or the fact that its an RPG where I reach the point where there is no story and all grinding gameplay (in most cases a JRPG).

For example, a game I received as a birthday gift, Orphen: Scion of Sorcery. Go ahead and look it up, I’ll wait. Suffice to say the game was next to unplayable and the story a little loose unless you were paying attention. The combat was plodding and the puzzles trial and error. I dropped over 10 hours into that game to reach the end only to find the game sending me back to the beginning and tell me to pick up the second storyline. Apparently there were two narratives you could choose from and enough time travel to make you choose both. Two hours later I found myself in a room with no exit running in circles with a camera trapped behind the cramped walls most of the time. I looked up the walkthrough and found that I had to leave via a door that didn’t exist in my copy. Game dropped.

The other instance is when an RPG stops telling a story and continues on for long periods of grinding before you can move on to the next stage or doesn’t tell you where to go next and expects you to wander around the world map until you find it. This happens with regular frequency in the Final Fantasy series around the three quarters mark and I find myself stopping around that time too.

But then comes the exception to the rule. One of my favorite games of all time, if not my favorite game and yet I have never beaten it. I have started Baldur’s Gate on three separate occasions, sunk a good 40-60 hours into each play through and end up not finishing. Either due to a poorly chosen save point, changing computers or lose of data over a few years. I love the game and its story, but I cannot get myself to the end of the game.

Which brings me to my second question: what counts as completing a game?

I’m still speaking of narrative games only for the purpose of this question. Once again the answer is going to be different for every person and even different with every game. It could be as simple in reaching the end credits and maybe seeing whatever might be on after them (I’m looking at you Prince of Persia). Does epilogue DLC or extra episodes count towards the original game or do you subconsciously think of them as different games? For the actual end, if you put in the work, but couldn’t quite get to the very last spot is it enough to watch someone else complete the game? If there are multiple endings, is one good enough or do you have to play it through multiple times? And now with achievements and trophies, is complete all the points or the platinum trophy?

With Black I got through the whole game except the last room of the last level. It was nearly up to the point where I wanted to heave the controller at the screen, but I still wanted to see the end and couldn’t afford to pay for a replacement TV, so I contacted a friend to do it for me, saw the end of the story and felt I had completed the game.

With Kingdom Hearts I could have beaten the game long before I actually did, but to me that wasn’t finishing the game. I went and grinded up so I could get the ultimate keyblade and take out the two side bosses and finish all the tournaments. Then I went and beat the final boss. That was completing the game for me.

With a movie or book, or play, completing is seeing the ending. Only with video games does this become a near philosophical question to the nature of the medium. I am curious to hear your take on it and any stories of your own.

A few weeks ago I talked about games in their console generational context and received the internet equivalent of blank stares. After a little clarification I mentioned I had a post idea to define the generations and explain my own unique ways of dividing the history of video games. Someone said they liked the idea and so here we are.

For anyone to really understand the evolving state of an art form or medium must understand where it came from. Though video games have only been around for around 30 years it has a very long and detailed history, mostly thanks to the nature of technology. Of course the differences are more than just technological. There is a mentality change in the designers and the audience. We are presently in the 7th generation of consoles. Simultaneously we are in the Second Age of gaming and the 4th Era. Some may not know the details of the first, fewer of the second and I can almost guarantee no one had a clue about the third.

Something worth mentioning: this is the cliff notes version of video game history. My intention is to give a quick breakdown and explain the concepts. If I don’t mention your favorite obscure console, I don’t care. Some of the generations have upwards of 30 consoles I’ve never heard of and that never captured a market share.

A Lesson in History

The first generation could be explained as the cartridgeless generation. First the Odyssey, the home version of Pong, and others were machines with a single game programmed in and the later ones had two or three. The second generation saw the rise of Atari, and later ColecoVision. It was a great golden age of home console gaming that focused on bringing the arcade experience to the home TV. After the great video game crash of 1983, a new company came to American shores and brought the Nintendo Entertainment System or NES with them. Nintendo re-imagined the interest and became a powerhouse, meanwhile the last remnants of Atari, in the form of the Jaguar, died out as a hardware manufacturer. This is the 3rd generation, also known as the 8-bit era, named for the NES processing power. The 4th generation brought NES’ sequel, the Super NES and its competitor, the Sega Genesis. This is the 16-bit era. Lots of action between the companies as they battle for market dominance. Moving along to the 5th generation. Thanks to a betrayal and a few mistakes, Sony entered the fray with the original PlayStation. Nintendo stood fast with the N64 and Sega fumbled with the Sega Saturn. The 6th generation is where it gets a little complicated time wise. Sega made one last stand with the Dreamcast, giving it an early release, but was quickly overshadowed a year later by Sony and their PlayStation 2, which I believe is the most successful console of all time as I write this. Sega dropped out just in time for Nintendo to bring in the purple lunchbox, also known as the Gamecube. Finally, the first western competitor since Atari enters the fight, Microsoft and their Xbox. This generation is the first to see online capabilities to home consoles. Now we are in the 7th generation with two sequels, PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, and a reinvention, the Nintendo Wii. This way to view the timeline is defined by the technology of the console and companies upgrading their consoles.

I mentioned before that we are also in the Second Age of gaming. What do I mean by that? This refers to the industry behind the games or rather the infrastructure of the medium. This is a medium based on technology unlike any other before it. The First Age was one of American infrastructure. From the beginning all the way to the great crash is the first age. The Second Age is Japanese infrastructure; ignore Microsoft for a second, I’m generalizing here. It was Nintendo that pulled video games back from the dead and it has continued based on the groundwork they laid. Their business model was a reaction to what was generally considered the fall of the video game industry in 1983. They required 3rd parties to register with Nintendo, limited the amount of games and other draconian rules set down for their system so that the crash would not repeat itself. Now with more consumer awareness and the internet I doubt there will ever be another crash. Yes some companies are failing, but the entire industry wont have its existence in the balance like last time. Regardless, the Second Age structure is still in place.

Finally I labeled us in the 4th Era of gaming. I divide each era by a great change, advancement, or overhaul in the medium as an art form. Basically how the designers approach making games. The beginning, 1st generation, comprises the entirety of the 1st Era. Back then it was basic, rudimentary; each machine was a game unto itself. The 2nd Era of gaming began with the introduction of the exchangeable media and programmable architecture, namely cartridges. This Era was the entire 2nd generation of consoles. Back then only a single machine was needed and the games had to be purchases separately at a cheaper price. The 3rd Era of gaming began with the Second Age and 3rd generation. There was a huge leap in processing power, which would become the standard from generation to generation, but the jump here caused several unique changes. The first being recognizable, recurring characters. It also added rudimentary story telling in game, art style and color schemes. Finally we come to the 4th Era in gaming, which began in the 5th generation, the generation of the N64 and Playstation. The move from 2D to 3D was the greatest upgrade of the Era and is where designers have been working ever since.

The Future?

When I first conceived of this post several months ago I thought that we might have remained in the Second Age and 4th Era, but with the recent developments of the industry moving to digital distribution in DLC and services like Steam have me thinking that the infrastructure may change from the platform originally set up by Nintendo. And while we have been exploring the design space of 3D, I feel that we’ve reach a limit of technological innovation and now the focus will turn to more artistic innovation. Plus with the existence of the Wii there could be a permanent division between traditional controls and alternate controls. Either way we could be on the verge of the next Age and Era if we are not already there.

The Point

It’s the old saying that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it. That is true on a small level, with game franchises like Tomb Raider never changing their formula or fixing what doesn’t work, but it also works on larger scale concepts like the design space and the industry. We are still feeling the effects of the video game crash of 1983. Previous to that game making was about what ever the designer could think of and thought would be good. After the crash, because of the hasty flop of E.T. and 3rd parties flooding the market with cheep shovelware, Nintendo reacted to prevent such a thing from happening again. Companies could only release a certain amount of titles every year to steam the flow of games to the market thereby confusing potential customers. They also created a system of quality control to make sure the customer never got too bad a game for their purchase, e.g. one that was free of game breaking bugs. This in combination with the qualities of the 3rd Era we have companies needing to make more money on fewer titles. They needed games that would sell and the fastest way to do this was with games that have already proven themselves to be successful. Thus the franchise was born. Even though some of the causes have faded, the mentality has led to the sequelitis of modern day gaming.

Ok, my presence on the Internet the last week has been next to non-existent. Not just on this site, but Creative Fluff, twitter, IRC ect. Call it laziness or school, but I’m still alive. It’s that time when my personal projects are numerous and I hope to finish them off before my school work takes complete focus.

Anyway I was thinking about what to write as a quick of the top of my head post and it occurred to me. I did a post last year, I Called It, which was kind of pointless being one of the first half a dozen things I posted on the site. I could have written anything that happened and said I say this would happen. Well I did say those things, maybe not on the net, but in real life to anyone who would bother to listen to me. This year I decided to put my money where my mouth is so to speak and play act as Nostradamus of a little bit, without the cryptic speech that can be interpreted any which way of course.

First off, my thoughts on Resident Evil 5. This game is not going to light the world on fire, nor is it going to get the same kind of “best game of all time” response that Resident Evil 4 received from non-hype machine sources. The game is just like RE4 and unlike it’s predecessor it is not fresh enough to escape the fact that it isn’t frightening anymore and is an action title with some very frustrating controls. Co-op mode, while assuredly fun, should be the first and only needed clue that this is no longer a horror game. It takes its lessons from the school of Gears of War, only with less amiable controls, and not, say, previous Resident Evils. I’m not even speaking towards the game’s quality or the debates that will go on with the game’s “racism.”

Killzone 2- It was marketed as a Halo killer. I’m not sure that’s accurate no matter how nice the grit looks on screen. I was in the multiplayer beta and its just a basic shooter. Which given how much gimmick there seems to be now, a basic shooter may be something new. I am willing to bet that this will be the PlayStation’s answer to Halo. Not in terms of advancement of the genre as the first one was, but I’d say closer to the third one. The multiplayer is the focus and the story is just sort of there for the “few” people that still get shooters for single player. You’re a space marine tasked with killing aliens. It will be a killer app for Sony, if they ever market the bloody thing, but frankly all it is, is another shooter. The best of the bunch, but still just another shooter.

I just looked over the last two paragraphs and realize they could spawn posts in and of themselves. However, since I’m here to make predictions I’m going to curtail reasons for latter game specific posts. Onward.

3. inFamous – I can get behind this game. It is going to be  solid title for the PlayStation 3. That’s it a strong and solid title. That’s not a bad thing, but I doubt the whole open world aspect that inFamous is in a long line of games trying to promote. I don’t think it’s going to offer the freedom to just do anything you want. And as for the choice of being a hero or an anti-hero as much as I love the idea, I think it’s going to fall as flat as Bioshock’s attempt did.

Cuatro: Heavy Rain- This game, like the Quantic Dreams’ last game, Indigo Prophecy, is going to fall squarely into the sphere of the Killer 7 argument. Like the term’s titular game and No More Heroes and Earthbound and Beyond Good and Evil, despite the flaws its worth getting and playing because of the utter uniqueness of the title. I haven’t a clue how much they are going to live up to the ever player action affects the story aspect, but I think its going to shoot for the moon, push the boundaries of what is currently being done and then fall short. Hence the Killer 7 argument.

Quinqu__ Prototype – Really, this is the game getting most of the attention and hype? Two phrases should have turned everyone off this title. “The main character has amnesia” and “Open world game with totally destructible environments.” If that’s your thing you don’t have to wait for the game to come out. Both Grand Theft Auto 4 and Hulk Ultimate Destruction will fill the space. Average, run of the mill, solid but uninspired and that’s being generous. At least inFamous got creative in its excuses for the character to do things.

Roku = Uncharted 2: Among Thieves- I predict that this game will have the exact same effect on me that the first one did. I like the game thought it was solid and even better than average, but on replaying it and on every reflection of the game it goes up in my esteem. I end somehow defending against all nitpicks and am not sure how I got to that point. But honestly, after experiencing that effect once, that’s really what I want the sequel to do to me.

& // I Am Alive – I expect this game to promise a world of new experience in the survival genre and then deliver only dressed up old experiences.

Eight || Assassin’s Creed 2 – An improved Assassin’s Creed game, with more varied missions and interesting interactions. Basically what the first title should have been. And of course another balls to the wall excuse to have it take place in the past.

Nove [] Alan Wake – It will not come out this year.

Zhen ; Dragon Age: Origins- It will not live up to the myth Baldur’s Gate built up over the last 11 years, but it will come damn close. The PC version will be better than the console versions.

Well those are all the games I can think of off the top of my head and is more than enough for ten months from now, when I see how I did.