Recently, the old ghost that has been haunting the video game industry for the last few years reared it’s ugly head in many recent reviews of the Darkness 2. Not mine… But there were plenty of folks out there that felt like the Darkness 2 was just too short. Back in November, folks complained that Uncharted 3 Drake’s Deception was too short. Seems like every year some degree of hullaballoo is made over the fact that the Call of Duty campaigns can’t seem to escape the 6-7 hour mark in length. But I’ve got to say that the worst offender in all this were some of the recent reviews of Asura’s Wrath that complained that there was no replayability because once you know the story what’s the point. Otherwise, the game was practically perfect. I’m starting to wonder what the point to all this is; after all, what are we interested in achieving from all this?
Are we interested in bang for our buck or something worth playing. Especially considering these days most gamers don’t finish games. In fact, the numbers run around something like 60% of all gamers don’t finish them. What is the point then in having a 20+ hour campaign when a 5-10 hour one would do. There are more important issues in gaming other than length. Most reviewers seem pretty married to innovation as their benchmark of excellence until the rest of the game doesn’t meet their unwritten rules as well. Lets take a look: no names, no sites, just what the game industry is up against right now.
The game has a great story but it’s too short(Uncharted 2+3, Darkness 2, MW3). It’s a great campaign, but this tacked-on multiplayer come on!(Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, AC Revelations, Darkness, Bioshock 2, Dead Space 2). The campaign is great but the game is too short and there is no multiplayer(Mirror’s Edge, Asura’s Wrath, Bioshock(yes, really), Shadows of the Damned, Batman Arkham Asylum, Bayonetta, Vanquish, God of War 3). So let’s see the perfect games that get 100% every time should be Elder Scrolls(all of them), Grand Theft Auto(all of them after 3), Gears of War 3, Saints Row the Third, all the Persona games, Borderlands, and LittlebigPlanet 1+2. Then we have the “bad” open world games where there isn’t enough to do even though the game takes upwards of 20 hours to complete(All the Assassin’s Creed games, Infamous 1+2, Kingdoms of Amalur: the Reckoning, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Saints Row the Third, and Darkness). Then there is the other extreme that is even more hilarious, the game is just too long(Skyrim, Batman Arkham City, Final Fantasy(take your pick)). I will point out in case you haven’t noticed that no matter what the game industry does; they are wrong. People complained after Bioshock that it would be cool to have a multiplayer and it would really increase the replayability of the game. With Bioshock 2 they had one that everyone said they never wanted. What? They made it based on the fact that you wanted it.
Being an innovator is great, having a new IP is great. But the game has to be fun. That’s all I ask. It doesn’t have to be especially long or feature rich. Just fun. Otherwise, even if the game has a laundry list of features and modes; no one will play them, because they aren’t fun. I think any reviewer that is going through a mental checklist to decide if something is a good value; is doing a disservice to the people they are writing reviews for. Even better, just do exactly what you want to do and tell the rest of the world to go to HELL! I hated Heavy Rain, but at least the developer made the game they wanted to make. Vision rules all, compliance in art is for suckers and posers. Until we learn this in the game industry we will just keep creeping closer to the TV and Movie industries who can’t see their way clear to make anything but the same old crap every single year just because they are too scared to do anything else. But then games aren’t art, maybe we just making widgets; that’s a whole other argument that I REALLY don’t want to get into. Because if video games aren’t then movies certainly aren’t. Not anything that’s been made since 1970 anyway.
Reviewers are not there to tell their readers to buy something or not; based on how good of a value the game is. We are not doing consumer reports here. We should not be interested in whether the game is water proof or how long it runs if you leave it running for an extended period of time. Game Reviews are most akin to book reviews. I’ve never heard a book reviewer say, “Well, I liked the book, but really it is just so expensive for how many pages it has. 3/5 stars.” Books are getting expensive, the last Stephen King book came out for a retail of $35; it’s a big book. I think I can get 849 pages for a lot less money. It’s what’s on those pages that makes it important. I’m wondering how often people think about that when reviewing games. Because a game is usually the work of hundreds, not just one person. But then, most people probably don’t think about that, given they don’t see the credits because they rarely finish these games that are too short.
I have loved a great many games that many reviewers on Metacritic think are just not that great. I’m an 7-8/10 enthusiast, I play 9,10/10 games too. But the games that I love, I mean love! Are usually not quite there. Bastion, Shadows of the Damned, Bioshock 1+2, Saints Row the Third, Bayonetta, Vanquish, Phantom Dust, Darkwatch, and there are many more. I love new IP, I love games that try to do things differently. But I also love good games. I will be happy to play Mass Effect 3, Max Payne 3, and Ultimate Marvel versus Capcom 3 right along side; Syndicate, Asura’s Wrath, Last of Us, etc… Because games should be about what happens from the START screen to the Final END credits. Not how long it takes to get there.
No comments:
Post a Comment