#1) A lot of the "good times" and legends live on only through nostalgia
 |
| Look, look!! A game that is only fun in your memories! |
We're all victims of nostalgic ignorance. We just refuse to admit it, or just haven't lived long enough to have it happen yet. However a lot of our games are dated. Lets face it, we enjoy our amazing games starting at child hood, and at some point we move on and life is good. However games change, and some of us are hard at accepting it. And there always are valid complaints about modern gaming, we can't ignore that, but neither can we ignore the problems of the games we often defend or look up to as a role model for what gaming should be. I will eventually use my own nostalgic memories as an example, but first lets start with a more obvious example of what I'm talking about: retro gamers. These guys will tell you all about how amazing gaming was in its infant days back when pac-man dominated, or how much fun the platformers were. Often they love making fun of how easy games these days are, how bad the industry is for flooding us with nonstop shooters, and how fun has gone extinct in exchange for gore, graphics, and multiplayer. But really lets take a look at their golden age, and a breakdown of all their complaints. This age had Mario. okay great! Even today that game is fun. Same for pac-man, and even donkey kong. But they are the exception rather than the rule. There are websites now that can host these atari, NES, and others like they were flash games. You can scroll down the list, and find about 4 genres: Fighting, sidescrolling platformer, RPG (JRPG by today's classification), and a few puzzlers. You could also throw in "other" for Metal gear, starfox, and a couple of others that tried their best to come up with innovation in an era that had around 1-4 buttons and a D-pad. The fighters were all the same button mashers where you just threw a punch, and a kick through a few stages, while platformers were all mario clones that were either broken to a lauging point, or too cheap and tough for the average person to play. These two genres by far overwhelmed the puzzles, RPGs, and any of those not fitting in a category. Not only was this era worse at over saturation than we are with FPS, but considering how limited the buttons, design teams, and overall tech was, there was almost no room to actually be different. Okay, so at least the piles of platformers, and fighters were challenging, right? Well yes, but I can't find this to be a compliment. When you have no save files, no serious control, and part of your gameplay is often who can spam more missiles on screen, you're going to find way more frustration than the type of good sportsmanship challenge you're thinking about. I'm sure some people did enjoy the challenges of this era, but saving was done for a reason, and lets not forgot that giving the player more freedom (like through more controls, content, and paths) will make it easier but also more entertaining as it lowers the risk of running yourself into a cheap and stuck situation. Be reasonable, many just don't wont the type of "challenge" the retro age had. As for the complaint that games past the 90s just aren't fun... you're kidding me. You just have no taste if all you can call fun is stuck on games that can't even surpass the flash games that I can play on newgrounds. It is nostalgia. The entire retro gamer group lives off of nostalgia. It is living off of the memories of fun you had when you first picked up your NES, or atari. You remember how impressive it was at that time. You remember the value of simplicity. It is nostalgia.
Well, I'm not just talking about retro gamers. This applies to myself as well. One of the reasons I rant about modern shooters (instead of just playing unreal tournament, duke nukem, or turok constantly) is because I want some of the new touches to mix with the old. The older "golden age" of FPS games had its downsides. Power ups could ruin some games, undeveloped space marine plots were complained about as much as russian/terrorist enemies are now, and casual shooters didn't even exist which left out a big crowd that wanted to enjoy the genre more than they could. Sometimes I talk about older FPS with more credit than they always deserve. Lets take turok for example. Turok had great moments, but its story was strange, the controls were amazingly bad (good for its time though), and the dated engine left the levels pretty bare or boring at times. Devs at this time didn't honestly call their games corridor shooters like it was a badge of honor, it was called that because the tech usually forced them to make you go through a lot of hallways and close up monster bashing. Likewise, the enemies back then were often fun to fight in varieties because they had almost no AI. Basic guys were push overs, then you had chargers, big brutes, mini-bosses, and such specialties because they could not have good enough AI to handle anything but one special form. You couldn't have duck and cover enemies, or enemies who would choose when to run and when to shoot. Sometimes the AI was barley even walking, and could get stuck on walls. The enemies were almost always entirely based on their attack type, and a trigger point that the player would cross. A lot of the time when I speak proudly about these games, it's because of nostalgia. That doesn't mean all my points are forfeit. We still need a variety, and some games could use the health packs, and enemies that go beyond grunts with guns. However we don't need to duplicate everything that the older games did. A lot of the fun is nostalgia, and the truth is that the games I often point at are dated with certain flaws that should be avoided.
Now some games, classics, and "golden age" references still hold. Metal Gear Solid will always be an entertaining series, so will that famous zelda 64 game, the original mario bros is still great to play, and certain traits from games of all eras deserve a chance in this changed one. For example we should have some more basic platformers, and we do deserve more variety in our shooters, but overall we shouldn't get carried away with what the modern games are missing as a lot of our memories of what was better, is the nostalgia talking.
#2) Graphics are a comparison issue
 |
| Graphics lovers will only love the improvement until a 3rd comparison comes along. |
Remember how bad the graphics are back in the PS1 days? All blocky, pixels, and plenty of flat polygons. Then the PS2 era came along, and... wow, people actually liked these visuals? And I can't believe the wii. Oh, but the PS3, and 360 are Amazing! Look at all that detail, and HD perfection! Some of this is even running on 1080p. Well, at least that's what you would think until the PC fan comes in and gives you a bunch of stats about how crappy your consoles are. I guess you could almost say those techy numbers his PC can run have spoiled him... or you could look in the mirror and realize it's the same for you! Graphics are a comparison issue. The less people see "the future" of graphics, the more satisfied they'll be with what they have. It's always been that way, even if we can point to details about graphics that suck. I can talk about how bad the blocky graphics are, but really I was fine with it at the time I was playing those games, and I was even amazed at some of them. Even within a single console generation, you can see this effect taking place. Halo 3 will look amazing until you see the improvements in halo reach, then you can never look at halo 3 the same way. An even more obvious example would be a game like lair, legendary, haze, or half-life 2 compared to a more recent game like MW3, skyrim, etc. The graphics change with special little features in between releases like particles, glows, and textures. All of these eventually add up, but until you see them you usually stay impressed with whatever set the standard previously. Some people wont be happy until we get photo realism, but unless you're one of them there should be no reason to be upset with the current graphics. So lets honestly stop worrying about graphics, and how "bad" the older consoles look. They were just fine until a new shiny toy got your eye. Graphics will always keep outdoing themselves until it reaches reality level. No need to be perfectionists about it, or worry too much. I'd be more worried about the price that the future graphics will cost really.
#3) Casual gamers are NOT stupid
 |
| "Rated S for stupid" Said wannabe hardcore gamers. |
Now this just bugs me. It gives hardcore gamers a bad name, and it's making the game site comments look like immoral, out of touch, bullies. I get on the internet and read about how Bioware games, killzone 3, Call of duty, angry birds, and basically anything else that isn't as challenging as dark souls is made or catering towards "stupid casual gamers" who aren't tough enough to handle a real game. The whole hardcore and casual gamer thing has severely lost its definition in today's gaming. Well really it never had a serious definition, and some people refuse to accept any classification beyond "gamer", but honestly just like defining love, religion, and spirit, there are guidelines and borders that will tell you what a casual/hardcore gamer is NOT. The hardcore gamer is NOT someone who strictly plays the toughest games available and sees everything else as kiddy toys. Likewise casuals are not stupid unless the individual is. Casual is a way of classifying people who want simple, easy, convenient, and "pick up" types of gameplay. A game like call of duty is casual because of some of its mechanics, like tiny health. The small health makes it simple and quick to get kills, ending the long battles to lower health count which usually requires the use of tricks and proper guns you get from mastering the game, or knowing when to run. Call of duty isn't doing it for stupid people, it's doing it for people who want quick and cheap thrills, or those who feel like they just don't have the time to study their way into the game. And yes, the game still takes some skill, just not as much as the non-casual. Likewise others started to do the same thing with their future installments. Does this make people mad? Hell yes it does. Not everybody wants the entire gaming industry to start pumping out games that have few or no learning curves. But that's not a reason to sit their and associate casual gamers with stupidity. Sometimes it's good to sit down on a coffee break, pull out angry birds, and enjoy it. They aren't doing it because they're too stupid to play bigger games, they do it because they simply don't have the time or desire to pursue after all of the bigger stuff. Casual gamers are often barely gamers. They play games like a hobby when they get all bored, or have some of their friends over for the latest dancing game. This isn't about their sanity, and intelligence on comprehending a game. It's about their interests. That's also why a lot of the actual hardcore gamers also play casual games. It's not out of stupidity, it is because sometimes they want some simple joys instead of cramming hours into a game to progress.
#4) We need to acknowledge and respect those who are trying!
 |
| No need to write a story, you'll only get trolled on. |
Ever heard of brink? If you did from the comment section, it sucks completely. Pass it by as garbage. How about Killzone3, and bulletstorm? Mixed comments on the gameplay, but you'll always find a comment saying the stories sucked. No wonder our FPS market is in bad shape, the people fixing the flaws are the one being blamed more while others just get by with an ok stamp. Brink was a game that failed critically, but mostly for its lack of levels and modes as well as unstable bugs and lag. What it got right, and many critics have put this in sight, is that it tried to stand out. It gave us different combat, customization options, and an improved team work feel. Will the average comment or forum thread say that? Nope, that game got a 5/10 it sucked. instantly the comments on reviews, and forums were full of flaming trolls who acted like they had predicted a tragic fall since the first announcement. Now the story for killzone3? Look up its development. over an hour of cut scenes, great actors, movie grade story writers, a timeline of fictional history to work with, and yet somehow after digging through comments and opinions on the story you'll see "it sucked". Same with bulletstorm, and that even got punished on a critic level somehow. I know killzone3 and bulletstorm weren't amazing revolutions in story making, and they didn't cater to our every whim, but are we really going to sit here and slap them in the face for trying? Everybody else is just throwing terrorists, and "epic scenes" in their games and calling it done, with some even avoiding cut scenes. Yet these guys get by us with weak stories without much blame just because it's normal? guys can we please stop for a second and appreciate the attempts? Even black ops somehow got some story haters... why? What is there to hate about the obvious progress? Because you found one hole, or you didn't care much for one character? We don't need a metal gear solid or half-life game to come along every time we want a good story. I'd far rather praise a revenge adventure that gives me strange characters like bulletstorm than sit through a story where the characters hardly have any name or recognition past a voice and a mask or hair style like most games. We should just be a bit more grateful for some of the games that are trying to fix problems, even if they don't fix them all the way. Progress is progress. When we realize the attempts of progress, and stop bashing the games that try to avoid the negative standards, then maybe we can move the standards higher.
#5) The gaming advancements aren't that stupid or gimmicky
A lot of people are getting tired of the common trolling haters. We see call of duty haters, just randomly hating COD while secretly buying it and making the people who actually dislike it or critique it, look bad. For every one now, we have another making fun of them or fussing at them. Then you have people who just hate on each others consoles, which sparks up the horrible fanboy wars that we all hate. Hell, we still have people who blindly bash on halo.... even after that hate fad died out. why is anyone still acting like calling it "gaylo" is still cool? But there is one form of ignorant hatred that still gets away quite often, and.that's the crowd that calls everything that they don't like a gimmick. Touch screen, motion controls, microphones, graphics, 3D, your entire wii and kinect library and all sorts of other next-gen tech are as gimmicky as your light up toothbrush according to these haters. We need to realize that these haters are either over exaggerating by an great amount, or are just flat out wrong.
First thing is that we must understand a gimmick, otherwise we're just throwing a fancy word around that we heard about. A gimmick is a marketing tool where you have something that looks special, but it in fact does nothing to help or can just get in your way. It often looks flashy, and gets the attention of easily excitable people. Again, the light up tooth brush is the perfect example of a gimmick as it is a tacked on feature that almost cannot help you in any way shape or form. It is literally flashy just to say "I'm different, buy me". Now look up at the picture, and you'll see the wii steering wheel. Maybe the plastic wheel itself can be argued as gimmicky (I disagree as it helps tremendously compared to steering with a gamecube or standard wii remote), but what it symbolizes is an innovation. People like this step up closer to VR or simulation. It's nice to have a cool option to steer your car around with a controller balancing in your hands. It's not some crap slapped one to make your kids buy it, it actually improves and adds a feature to some already fun games. Calling it a gimmick is like calling your bed pillow a gimmick. No you don't have to have it, but you want it, and it does help. It's a step forward. Is the PS3 blu ray a gimmick? No it is used along with the game, and can add some cool stuff as well as gives you the feature to watch amazing movies. Without it there would be a few more multi-disc games, and less features thrown on for the PS3. is the internet browser a gimmick? Yes actually. We have those on everything now, and often it runs way better than the slapped on console version. The browser is there just to say "look, I'm a special feature, buy me!".
The gimmicks come in with the individual games usually. In Killzone 2 you had a few areas where you were asked to just randomly operate stuff with the sixaxis. Why? Well because it just wanted to throw in the motion controls. There were motion controls done right with sniping that added to challenge and realism, but the rest of the motion controls were just gimmicks. A lot of wii games that are sold as party games, and kiddy games often have gimmicky parts where you're pointlessly swinging the remote around for the heck of it. Those are gimmicks, but features and advancements will change gaming with or without your support. There are people who abuse them, but there have always been bad cash-ins and bad games that specialize in stupid gimmicks.
#5) The gaming advancements aren't that stupid or gimmicky
 |
| Gimmick or the future? |
A lot of people are getting tired of the common trolling haters. We see call of duty haters, just randomly hating COD while secretly buying it and making the people who actually dislike it or critique it, look bad. For every one now, we have another making fun of them or fussing at them. Then you have people who just hate on each others consoles, which sparks up the horrible fanboy wars that we all hate. Hell, we still have people who blindly bash on halo.... even after that hate fad died out. why is anyone still acting like calling it "gaylo" is still cool? But there is one form of ignorant hatred that still gets away quite often, and.that's the crowd that calls everything that they don't like a gimmick. Touch screen, motion controls, microphones, graphics, 3D, your entire wii and kinect library and all sorts of other next-gen tech are as gimmicky as your light up toothbrush according to these haters. We need to realize that these haters are either over exaggerating by an great amount, or are just flat out wrong.
First thing is that we must understand a gimmick, otherwise we're just throwing a fancy word around that we heard about. A gimmick is a marketing tool where you have something that looks special, but it in fact does nothing to help or can just get in your way. It often looks flashy, and gets the attention of easily excitable people. Again, the light up tooth brush is the perfect example of a gimmick as it is a tacked on feature that almost cannot help you in any way shape or form. It is literally flashy just to say "I'm different, buy me". Now look up at the picture, and you'll see the wii steering wheel. Maybe the plastic wheel itself can be argued as gimmicky (I disagree as it helps tremendously compared to steering with a gamecube or standard wii remote), but what it symbolizes is an innovation. People like this step up closer to VR or simulation. It's nice to have a cool option to steer your car around with a controller balancing in your hands. It's not some crap slapped one to make your kids buy it, it actually improves and adds a feature to some already fun games. Calling it a gimmick is like calling your bed pillow a gimmick. No you don't have to have it, but you want it, and it does help. It's a step forward. Is the PS3 blu ray a gimmick? No it is used along with the game, and can add some cool stuff as well as gives you the feature to watch amazing movies. Without it there would be a few more multi-disc games, and less features thrown on for the PS3. is the internet browser a gimmick? Yes actually. We have those on everything now, and often it runs way better than the slapped on console version. The browser is there just to say "look, I'm a special feature, buy me!".
The gimmicks come in with the individual games usually. In Killzone 2 you had a few areas where you were asked to just randomly operate stuff with the sixaxis. Why? Well because it just wanted to throw in the motion controls. There were motion controls done right with sniping that added to challenge and realism, but the rest of the motion controls were just gimmicks. A lot of wii games that are sold as party games, and kiddy games often have gimmicky parts where you're pointlessly swinging the remote around for the heck of it. Those are gimmicks, but features and advancements will change gaming with or without your support. There are people who abuse them, but there have always been bad cash-ins and bad games that specialize in stupid gimmicks.
No comments:
Post a Comment