Hey guys, here's a trip down memory lane for all you awesome gamers out there! Remember when Nathan Drake of Uncharted got stuck on an island, had to gather supplies and put together crude WW2 weapons sturdy enough to last him a whole trip, cried and complained about his newfound hardships as this was his first (unwanted) adventure, and had his friend nearly sacrificed to a crazy occult and an angry island spirit? Me neither! That was 2013's Tomb Raider. But I'm sure I just made that mistake because its very simple to confuse them. I mean Uncharted is really similar in that you play a wise-cracking hero, banter with a rag-tag team of misfits, and dash across the globe entering constant exciting set pieces with an entire mercenary army hunting down the same treasures that usually seem mystical, but turn out to be more toxic than anything else. Oh wait no those are two totally different things. But there's got to be some connections here, right? Well they both are done in a 3rd person shooter angle, and have a single player focused affair with characters who specialize in archaeology. That's... about it. They don't even both play like the same 3rd person shooter, one is melded with metroid style exploration across a connected island that has some reoccuring spots and openings, and the other is more traditional with common shooter gameplay and linear level progression. That's be like calling two multiplayer shooters the same because they have quirky colorful heroes, and that'd be ridiculous. I mean nobody has ever confused Overwatch with Battleborn, or oh wait did I mean Team Fortress 2? Oh wait a minute....
Yeah this has been on my mind for a while, and I keep putting it on hold or talking myself down from it. But the issue keeps coming back up, so I'm just going to say it: If you're one of those people to sew together any of the above games as the "same thing"; Stop being shallow, blind, idiots. Oh, did my tone seem a little insulting? Good, because I'm fed up with all the mechanics, fun, and inner-lying strategy that separates two very different games as being melded together with "derp, its the same because they both have a pony." That makes your statement a very absurd and short sighted one, as if you can't tell your right hand from the left because "they both have thumbs, no difference.". So you've earned it. Its not just an issue about comparing games either. Anyone can easily compare Team Fortress 2 with Garden Warfare, but only in a light manor of describing how they work. They both depend on classes, a nice colorful tone, and run with crazy abilities and powers that defy logic to deliver a crazy fun multipayer experience. They have that in common, and to compare the two makes life easier for everyone in conversation. They are not taken to be the same kind of game though, and that's good.
 |
| A cartoony character with a bow just like TF2 sniper!? Sue the bastards, they stole the whole game. |
Meanwhile Overwatch does have that problem, as the comparison at some point jumped the shark from "its kind of like this game" to "Oh yeah it totally stole its soul and became the same thing. Its an awesome/awful rip-off!". This is a problem because it takes all the finer differences in hero quality, ability differences, the unlock system, the interface and community the game is centered around, and throws it all out the window by falsely saying "imagine its exactly like this game, because it is!" No its not. It has a different name, different mechanical priorities, may have even released among a new market space, and is going to likely be supported differently. They all have their unique odds and ends, and its not just skin deep unless it truly is a clone/knock-off. That does happen. At one time FPS really was just Doom clones, where games all worked the same with only a couple balancing alterations. However at some point we jumped that ship, and that point is something like Strife coming along that takes that same Doom frame and adds stealth, NPCs, dialogue options, etc. If you released it in today's market though your average internet comment would probably call them the same if they saw as much evidence as maybe one demon. Because apparently Doom had NPCs, and stealth much like how Uncharted had you exploring for parts to upgrade your bow to last you the entire game. The answer to that analogy is that they don't, and that makes a huge difference as to how the games unfold regardless of what occupation or camera angle the character share in common. That's all it takes to set people off now.
That's why Overwatch was so fiercely compared to Battleborn even though they were miles apart. But colorful characters + multiplayer theme = twins apparently. Don't pay any attention to the character ability differences, any mode variations that define the way you're supposed to play, or important interface utilities like changing your entire damn character in the middle of a match, nope they're both the same game and you MUST choose one over the other because why would you buy the same game twice? These games were practically in a community war with each other, and it couldn't have been more ridiculous. Some people have blamed the marketing, but you can't seriously sit there with a straight face and tell me that with multiple free betas for each as well as constant and various sources pushing videos with clear evidence in your faces at no extra charge. You had to go out of your way to somehow be ignorant of this and yet also be involved in the community enough to call them the same, and yet that's what tons of people did. Only once both were out and things sorted themselves out, but sadly Battleborn kind of lost because out of this nonsensical comparison of "colorful heroes, its the same" Overwatch already held itself out as the popular kid with Blizzard's barrage of promotion and high reputation. ...and yeah, I think this ignorant, stupid, and short-sighted nonsense that comes from this awful mentality helped create a condition in which an ambitious and unique game was sent out to die for being told it had no identity of its own. The people that contributed to that should be ashamed of themselves.
 |
| That TF2-wannabe Hanzo is in here somewhere, I just know it! |
Not only is this an attitude that has, in rare cases, hurt games, but its also an attitude that indicates something of another problem: gamers don't understand their own games. Just look at WatchDog's hype where all the generic details were right in front of our faces, but people still got shocked when they found hacking was a prompt gimmick. Then there's the upcoming No Man's Sky where I've already discussed the net has this problem of being super hyped over sheer scope in space. Then there's cases like Far Cry Primal where even with all the differences, people will still fuss about it being a "reskin" over a few reoccuring mechanics. They don't accept, talk, or critic the newer features, its just all about how much its the same because you can craft stuff. Apparently that rules out over all the hard work put into the new game. This is basically why I wound up doing reviews the way I do, dissecting mechanics and how they play out. I don't get where some of the reviewers out there come from with this mentality that they can just give you an opinionated press release, and slap a score on the game and call it a review. A review of a product meant to inform the consumer of its quality should do exactly that. With a movie you'd discuss actors, casting, performances, and plot strength. With music you discuss composition, mood, and vocals. With games you're lucky if you get a review of the plot beyond just hearing the snyopsis (or my favorite, "it just doesn't exist" in games that do in fact have one). I know I'm digressing from the topic, but just think about it... if we're in a culture that has gotten so relaxed and lazy with comparisons that Tomb Raider is considered the same as Uncharted, how the hell are we going to review them properly? This is why no reviews gave us a good heads up on the awful ME3 ending. How are we going to critic, learn, grow, and develop the mediums rights and wrongs without being able to tell the difference between a metroid-shooter hybrid and a... well in the words of ignorance "a gears of war clone". Funny how that rip-off accusation died, I wonder why? Maybe because it didn't hold much merit, and once the game got well recognized enough it had to stand on its own? Either way, if you play one game like the other, you're going to probably walk away disappointed. Its up to the reviewer to not send you in on a false mindset (or have a sloppy one themselves) so that the game can stand on its own, for better or worse. But instead we've got a world in which there's a 10/10 for ACU describing it exactly like a press release, and Battleborn was constantly compared (mostly unfavorably) to Overwatch for no constructive reason.
Is this why it took us years to have a game like Doom 4, and why we still don't have serve browsers in our average online games? Only a minority talk about them, and others just gloss over or turn a blind eye entirely to game function like that, because that would require them to look beyond the plot description. Now there are smart writers, and smart reviewers doing games justice and still keeping things quick and clear, but there's a lot of shortsightedness coming out of both the press and just vocal gamers. These things don't get looked at, taken apart, dissected, and admired, so developers have no reason to go through the effort unless they themselves are smart enough to say they love it. This is exactly what happened with Insomniac dropped their framerate, noting that at the time 60fps never got noted on reviews, but graphics always did. So they sacrificed something on gameplay because there was no respect, appreciation, or even a nod from the critical side about this. Now our latest Ratchet & Clank game runs objectively worse than the majority of the franchise, dating back to PS2 hardware. Thanks journalism! I don't personally mind 30fps, but this is just a small example of the potential mess. I do think if there was an outcry on the current matchmaking style from every format, we'd see browser servers. Heck just look to PC as proof, with its open platform methods and a more aware community, its more common there even if plenty have still resorted to matchmaking.
 |
| Happy to say this stands on its own |
I'm aware I come off this angry, ranty, and potentially even a bit mean. Its not exactly a fun topic to talk about, and I've put it off for that reason. But there's a good reason I also feel this upset about it. I feel its one of the biggest threats to gaming from its own culture outside of the bullshit progressive politics. Its degrading to games and their artists, its damaged sales and spiked fanboy type competitive aggression, its limited our vocabulary and discussions, and it creates an atmosphere in which both the gamer and developer don't know what makes a game mechanically awesome. It takes a miracle like Dark Souls, or Doom 4 to bring out the discussions on how great mechanics work (at least after release. Before Doom was being compared to freakin' halo of all things), but as soon as you slide a WatchDogs in front of our faces it goes back to "ooh! I can hack a city?" without any questions. Do you choose Tomb Raider or Uncharted? Well the sad dumb truth is a lot of people will answer that with whether or not you want a male or female lead, rather than if you're into exploration vs great linear set pieces. ...and instead of merely talking about the games at all, instead of engaging in a fun community discussion with fans, the first thing I get to see when a new Tomb Raider article comes up about its PS4 port is "who cares, Uncharted 4 is the same thing miles better" from some idiot. Only that supposed idiot is the most upvoted comment among a mix of spiteful fanboys, and those ignorant and naive on what they may or may not have played. It frustrates me to see that kind of thing. I'm not saying you have to drop all comparisons. Uncharted and Tomb Raider still appeal very much to the same kind of player base, as almost anybody into action adventures will appreciate them. Similarly Okami will appeal to and make sense to compare with Zelda related things. TF2 really can be compared to overwatch as a quirky competitive objective-driven FPS. But these aren't the same games, and you can buy, play, and experience them all in their own unique and individual ways.
There isn't a single game out there at this time that can give you the same experience as playing Genji in Overwatch, or Pyro in TF2, nor is there an easy equivalent to Super Brains from Garden Warfare 2. These are all unique classes made and balanced within their own games, with different loadout settings and abilities, and from the imaginations of awesome artists who had unique combinations of ideas to create such playable characters. Likewise there's only one 3rd person shooter I know of hanging as close to metroid level design and roots as much as Tomb Raider does, and a fan of both Uncharted and Super Metroid will be absolutely thrilled with this kind of detail. Its unique and an awesome experience only 2013's Tomb Raider can give you. Not Uncharted, not Gears of war, and not even older Tomb Raider. I think that sort of thing deserves a good bit of recognition and respect, don't you? Can we discuss mechanics a little more instead of just style, or premise? Alright I think that's enough for now. Thanks for sticking with me on this angry lengthy post.
 |
| Obviously Uncharted... right? |
No comments:
Post a Comment