I've mentioned this before in an earlier post of mine, and it's an important enough issue to warrant it's own post I think; that video games aren't very challenging anymore.
There was once a time where beating a level of a game, let alone the game itself was really damn hard. It made people cry, get angry, throw things, get depressed, get violent, etc. Games were hard, and when you beat one, you felt proud and accomplished. You'd succeeded in your task and maybe not a whole lot of people you knew could say the same thing.
I'm not talking about Superman 64 hard where it's because the game is just stupid. I'm talking about Contra and any number of other older games that were really challenging to get through.
They were also fun. While they were extremely challenging, part of the fun was the challenge.
Now compare it to Assassin's Creed: Blag Flag, which I did play all the way through, and while it had its points, the game is so repetitive in gameplay it gets really old before you're even halfway through playing the game. It's also way too easy. There aren't really any consequences for doing things wrong, except that you start over at your last check point, but other than that, you can take on dozens of enemies and even though you're only using 18th Century muskets and pistols, they're deadly accurate; and by deadly accurate, I mean they hit your target without misfiring and as long as your target is within range(which is still way too far)and you have the crosshairs on them, you're good to go. Maybe if each mission became more challenging than the last, the games repetitiveness wouldn't be so bad(although, it was pretty bad), the game was really easy. The best thing about that game was the sea battles, and they were the most challenging, at first, before you upgrade your ship into an unstoppable beast(which even then if you get too cocky you can get destroyed).
That being said, I did enjoy a lot of the game, and while that is true, it could have been so much better. Games just walk people through everything they have to do now, and don't even make them figure out what they need to do. Very few games are stimulating intellectually or otherwise. Even the Medal of Honor series, which was not incredibly challenging, but they were fun, is more challenging and requires more thought than most of the Call of Duty games. And I was a Call of Duty fan when it came out, but they haven't really expanded past their model, which is one of the main reasons Call of Duty replaced Medal of Honor as everyone's favorite WWII gaming series; Medal of Honor had gotten old, and they weren't being innovative anymore. There's only so many times people can play the invasion of Normandy without it just looking all the same. That might have been what killed WWII games in general though, was that people just got sick of playing them, and why Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was so popular when it came out, or Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. Those are other, smaller subjects for another time though.
The point is, games need to actually be challenging again, rather than trying to appeal for the widest audience possible, just so they can make money.
Kinja points out something I have left out thus far; that games have gotten easier, but harder to manage, meaning that while games have gotten easier by a lot, the way we are playing these easier games has become more complex, with more buttons and controls than ever before. And that might be what has replaced the challenge of a difficult game; the challenge of trying to manage yourself with an easy game.
I think maybe this might come to newer solutions to games in the future; making them less complex to manage, but more challenging to play, and having a balance of the old and new. We won't know until the future though, so until then, we must keep hoping and doing what we can to improve the gaming industry ourselves, if that will even work.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Game Design Consoles and Falling Behind the PC
I think that one of the biggest tells, is that the new systems for the consoles, the X-Box One and the Playstation 4, are not much more advanced than their predecessors, the X-Box 360 and the Playstation 3. The graphics and processing weren't improved all that greatly; look on a PC however, and the differences can be astounding. I think one of the best examples is for Grand Theft Auto 5, on the PC vs. the X-Box One. If you look at a car on the PC version, you'll almost think it's a photograph of an actual car, because the graphics are so advanced. If you look at it on a newer system like an X-Box One, you'll already know it's a video game from the graphics.
The thing is, PC's have had all these advantages for years, and while we're not expecting consoles to be that advanced, I'd think that they would be much more improved than what they are. Even Forbes admits the advances of the PC over the console here. Even here where Nividia boss admits that, "No longer possible" for consoles to have better graphics than a PC.
It isn't just about the graphics though; it's about the gameplay and game diversity. There is a plethora of gaming possibilities for a PC, while consoles only have limited options, because they only have what is released to them. Some aren't even backwards compatible, meaning they can't play earlier games in their series(like X-Box One can't play X-Box 360 games). A PC can play any game made for a PC. You can even make your own game if you know how(even though that can be difficult).
Now, as much as I have loved consoles, I've always been a PC gamer, because I could just get whatever games I wanted for my PC. I'd always wanted consoles when they came out, but they were too expensive for me, along with their games. I've also found playing on a PC to be easier for me. The complain I have with consoles now though, isn't necessarily with graphics, or even their processing power(although they really should be more advanced), it's with the lack of creativity, and how they keep rehashing the same ideas through different games, and how they're seemingly held back in comparison with computer gaming.
There are so many more options for a computer, and I'd like to see the consoles start to step up their game. I don't think they're going to seriously do that for a while, because making money while you're able to be lazy is easy, but I certainly hope that in the future, new faces take over the gaming industries and take them towards better directions for games, and for gamers.
Game Design: Game Variation and Reliance on Similar Game Models
One of the differences I have personally noticed between gaming over 10 years ago, and gaming now, is the lack of variation amongst games. What I'm talking about, is how back in the day, there seemed to be less fear of failure in the gaming industry, because video games were still a relatively new thing, and they could take more risks, because even if your game sucked(Superman 64) and people hated it, they would still buy and play it, because it was a video game.
That isn't the case these days, and some of that is good; it means that a gaming company can no longer get away with selling something as horrible as Superman 64, but that doesn't mean they have to be creative anymore. One of the few exceptions of a game that was so horrible that it had to be gotten rid of, was E.T. way back in 1982, but that was very early on, and there haven't been many games that bad.
Since then however, I have noticed that games seem to settle for the mediocre. Sure we get some really good games every now and then, but for the most part, games seem like a copy of Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, or Halo. I've said this before I know, but it really does seem true. Games like Destiny, Titanfall, Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor(although I consider this to be better than many of the Assassin's Creed games), are all examples of games that have very similar game play and styling to already established and popular games.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are a ton of older games that are terrible, but the difference between them then and them now, is that developers were still learning and were throwing out lots of ideas; the gaming industry just seemed more free and creative, and sometimes they ended up with a bunch of games that sucked and made no sense, and other times they ended up with games that were pretty amazing, like Alien Versus Predator(1999), or a game series that makes Grand Theft Auto look like something for children, Postal(1997) and Postal 2(2003).
Part of the problem, a huge part, is that games just aren't that challenging anymore. They aren't hard. They walk you through practically everything and hold your hand while they show you exactly what to do and the only thinking you have to do is whom your going to shoot next. This could actually be an entire post in and of itself, just on how games are not nearly as challenging. Games used to be really hard. That's what made them even more rewarding when you beat them. More on that another time though, because that's just a part of the problem, even if it is a huge part.
Variation Within Video Games and Opinions goes into much of what I'm talking about, plus some. The author seems more positive than I though, with hopes of more variations of characters for the future, from different backgrounds. I'm not so sure though, and will believe it when it happens. Until then, we may just guess.
That isn't the case these days, and some of that is good; it means that a gaming company can no longer get away with selling something as horrible as Superman 64, but that doesn't mean they have to be creative anymore. One of the few exceptions of a game that was so horrible that it had to be gotten rid of, was E.T. way back in 1982, but that was very early on, and there haven't been many games that bad.
Since then however, I have noticed that games seem to settle for the mediocre. Sure we get some really good games every now and then, but for the most part, games seem like a copy of Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, or Halo. I've said this before I know, but it really does seem true. Games like Destiny, Titanfall, Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor(although I consider this to be better than many of the Assassin's Creed games), are all examples of games that have very similar game play and styling to already established and popular games.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are a ton of older games that are terrible, but the difference between them then and them now, is that developers were still learning and were throwing out lots of ideas; the gaming industry just seemed more free and creative, and sometimes they ended up with a bunch of games that sucked and made no sense, and other times they ended up with games that were pretty amazing, like Alien Versus Predator(1999), or a game series that makes Grand Theft Auto look like something for children, Postal(1997) and Postal 2(2003).
Part of the problem, a huge part, is that games just aren't that challenging anymore. They aren't hard. They walk you through practically everything and hold your hand while they show you exactly what to do and the only thinking you have to do is whom your going to shoot next. This could actually be an entire post in and of itself, just on how games are not nearly as challenging. Games used to be really hard. That's what made them even more rewarding when you beat them. More on that another time though, because that's just a part of the problem, even if it is a huge part.
Variation Within Video Games and Opinions goes into much of what I'm talking about, plus some. The author seems more positive than I though, with hopes of more variations of characters for the future, from different backgrounds. I'm not so sure though, and will believe it when it happens. Until then, we may just guess.
Game Design: DLC
In the more modern era of gaming, DLC's(Downloadable Content)have been becoming more and more normal. Some companies even seem to rely on this model for games; rather than releasing a game at once, they release portions of the game, and the player has to buy each portion separately.
Some consider this a way to make more money by making customers pay multiple times for one game, as opposed to releasing a game in its entirety and charging one price, as has been the norm since the beginning of gaming; others consider a DLC a way to get a part of a game earlier, and instead of having to wait, they get to play that portion and then wait till the next part comes out, so instead of having to wait a year or more, they get to play the game a lot sooner, just in pieces.
The Great DLC Controversy is a good article which explains some of what has been going on in the gaming world as far as DLC's are concerned. It goes through and names arguments by gamers, such as, "if it is available on release day, then it should be in the game." It also talks about one disc DLC, which is when a company releases a game on a disc, but the gamer has to purchase "content codes" to unlock content already on the disc. It even addresses Microtransactions, which could be talked about in another post almost; this practice is when there is a game(think of facebook games), and players can either play and upgrade their characters in a game, or they can purchase upgrades. What this does, is make it so that people who have been playing a game for even a year or so, can be outmatched by someone who's only been playing for a week, just because that other person bought a bunch of upgrades with real world money.
I've had this happen before. I played Marvel: Avengers Alliance on Facebook, and had my account for about a year or year and a half. I built up my characters without buying anything with real world money. I worked hard and upgraded, but no matter how much I would do that, or even if I were on a higher level, I could have a level 63 character, and go up against someone who had a level 12 character, and they'd easily beat me if they were just buying upgrades with real world money. What this does, is it takes away the integrity of playing the game, so that it's no longer about playing, but buying. It essentially ruins a game for anyone who wants to actually play it have real competition, but I digress.
The point with all this, is that the gaming industry, while it has always revolved around making money, is now very exclusively revolving around making a profit at the expense of customers and the games. It's why we don't have larger games coming out as often, or games that are outside of the norm quite as often; they're too risky, and are not worth it financially to the companies who put them out. That's why most first person shooters feel so similar, and why so many games coming out feel like they're another version of Halo, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, or something we're all familiar with. Familiarity means safety, and safety guarantees a profit. Can a DLC have a place that is good and helpful for gamers? Yes. If a company wants to test out a new game and gauge its audience, that's when a DLC is perfect, for when they haven't developed the full game, but would like to see what their customers think. It opens them up for constructive criticism so that they can improve their game, and in the long run make more money. It lets them take a risk as well. That is not how most DLC's are used though, and they probably won't be used that way for the most part, not anytime soon.
Until people actually have enough and stop buying(which probably won't ever happen), companies like EA have no reason to improve and will just continue to ignore complaints because they'll be rolling in the money of those who are complaining.
Some consider this a way to make more money by making customers pay multiple times for one game, as opposed to releasing a game in its entirety and charging one price, as has been the norm since the beginning of gaming; others consider a DLC a way to get a part of a game earlier, and instead of having to wait, they get to play that portion and then wait till the next part comes out, so instead of having to wait a year or more, they get to play the game a lot sooner, just in pieces.
The Great DLC Controversy is a good article which explains some of what has been going on in the gaming world as far as DLC's are concerned. It goes through and names arguments by gamers, such as, "if it is available on release day, then it should be in the game." It also talks about one disc DLC, which is when a company releases a game on a disc, but the gamer has to purchase "content codes" to unlock content already on the disc. It even addresses Microtransactions, which could be talked about in another post almost; this practice is when there is a game(think of facebook games), and players can either play and upgrade their characters in a game, or they can purchase upgrades. What this does, is make it so that people who have been playing a game for even a year or so, can be outmatched by someone who's only been playing for a week, just because that other person bought a bunch of upgrades with real world money.
I've had this happen before. I played Marvel: Avengers Alliance on Facebook, and had my account for about a year or year and a half. I built up my characters without buying anything with real world money. I worked hard and upgraded, but no matter how much I would do that, or even if I were on a higher level, I could have a level 63 character, and go up against someone who had a level 12 character, and they'd easily beat me if they were just buying upgrades with real world money. What this does, is it takes away the integrity of playing the game, so that it's no longer about playing, but buying. It essentially ruins a game for anyone who wants to actually play it have real competition, but I digress.
The point with all this, is that the gaming industry, while it has always revolved around making money, is now very exclusively revolving around making a profit at the expense of customers and the games. It's why we don't have larger games coming out as often, or games that are outside of the norm quite as often; they're too risky, and are not worth it financially to the companies who put them out. That's why most first person shooters feel so similar, and why so many games coming out feel like they're another version of Halo, Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, or something we're all familiar with. Familiarity means safety, and safety guarantees a profit. Can a DLC have a place that is good and helpful for gamers? Yes. If a company wants to test out a new game and gauge its audience, that's when a DLC is perfect, for when they haven't developed the full game, but would like to see what their customers think. It opens them up for constructive criticism so that they can improve their game, and in the long run make more money. It lets them take a risk as well. That is not how most DLC's are used though, and they probably won't be used that way for the most part, not anytime soon.
Until people actually have enough and stop buying(which probably won't ever happen), companies like EA have no reason to improve and will just continue to ignore complaints because they'll be rolling in the money of those who are complaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)