Is the future of gaming “pretty, but shallow?”
Wednesday, September 12th, 2007 at 10:25am by Jack
Is the excerpt below the future of gaming? Is this more proof that the “next generation” is really just a shiny bookend to the “console wars” and all that that strategy entails?
Pluses: Amazing graphics, well-directed cut scenes, “bullet time” shooting sequences.
Minuses: Shallow gameplay, not much variety, extremely short.
I’m not going to say where this review is from (I’ve even modified the wording a bit to hide the obvious giveaway), nor am I going to say for which game or which system. That’s irrelevant to this post’s purpose. What I see here is a pattern; I’ve seen similar reviews starting to pour out of the gaming press over the past couple of months. It bothers me. I do not want short but beautiful games. I do not want well directed cut scenes with cheapened, neutered game play. I do not want interactive movies. What I want is a balance of all of these elements and, more importantly, completely new elements that I could not get before.
So, I challenge the developers and publishers: Do you really think that what’s printed above is enough to warrant a $60 price tag? Is this what gaming really means to you? Stop telling me what a great game is supposed to be and start showing me real innovation so I can make that distinction on my own. The reality of the situation is I can just move on and ignore you. Since this is your profession you can’t do the same. Your livelihood depends on my wallet. Deal with it.
September 12th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I agree entirely. This reminds me of the Lair debacle, and how truly devastating it is for everyone involved in the gaming industry including gamers. An enormous amount of money, time and manpower went into creating Lair and the end result is complete mediocrity. As a gamer, this is devastating because we don’t often get a high profile original IP with that much financial backing more often than once a year… So when they’re duds it was all waiting for nothing. From the business side it’s just one more reason against doing original IP software with high production values, which just leads the way for more licensed characters parading through mediocre games made on the cheap. That to me is not what I want out of a “next generation” game
September 12th, 2007 at 10:49 am
“Your livelihood depends on my wallet.”
I love this line, because I like to post a variation of it all the time:
“Vote with your wallets, folks!”
Of course, you and I can scream this from the rooftops every day, but out there is a throng of consumers who, sadly, are all too willing to buy the game you describe above. Their ‘votes’ are rewarding developers for this tripe, encouraging developers to continue producing more of the same. What to do about them?
For the time being, I can only hope to ‘vote’ such that developers are financially encouraged when they create a good game. If that can keep the trash-to-treasure ratio from going any further into Hades, I can deal..
(Another topic I’d love for you to address in the future, Jack: Gaming magazines and websites certainly aren’t making things any bit easier. Surely you’ve witnessed the derision/mockery that Wii gets on a regular basis because of what it isn’t.)
September 12th, 2007 at 10:53 am
I agree, Jack, and I will vote with my wallet on this game (though I will rent it using a free coupon). No $60 from me.
Oh, and nice picture!
September 12th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Well, pretty graphics are getting easier and easier to pull off. Depth of gameplay is, and always has been, more difficult to pull off well. A new generation of hardware really encourages developers to focus on the new features.
Eye candy sells. Just like in movies. There will always be an audience for that type of game. I would like to believe that with games, just like with movies, there will also always be an audience for depth.
And on occasions, we will get treated to games that have it all.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
cygnus, creating the artwork itself isn’t easy. Those texture maps on everything in 3D games have to be created by an artist. Now that games are becoming HD, that art needs to be even more detailed, hence more time consuming to produce and ultimately more expensive. These days the focus on pretty graphics is actually overshadowing the importance of great gameplay.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:40 am
I would like to add another comment from that same review:
“I wouldn’t recommend spending $60 on it. It’s only about seven hours long. But if you can rent or borrow it, the things it gets right make it worth a playthrough.”
The Lair reviews just keep ringing in my ears.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
@johnnymilkshark
HD graphics are easy. Good artwork is not. I think there is a distinction. I would say that the average consumer will not make a distinction between good art direction and bad art direction. But I bet many will say that bad art direction in HD is better than good art direction in SD.
I don’t agree with that, but I know some people who are like that.
September 12th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I’m sort of surprised at the number of games that aren’t even able to break the double digits in play time recently. “Quality over quantity” I have heard people saying. I however personally believe there is no excuse for spending $60 on a 6 to 7 hour game.
On a side note aren’t the “Hardcore” gamers who play these games supposed to be the type that enjoy ‘long’, epic games, or devote ‘many’ hours beating such games?
September 12th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Sounds like a Stranglehold review.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Sounds like a large number of games from the previous gen forward. There;s plenty of 40+ hour games, but yet i spend more time playing games like shikigami no shiro 2 that can be beaten in 30 min, that’s a problem.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Gamespot and Heavenly Sword
September 12th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
If you really want to know, it was Chris Kohler from Wired reviewing Heavenly Sword:
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/09/review-heavenly.html
The length of the game shouldn’t matter if the experience is fulfilling. Games like Ikaruga can be completed in an hour, but the experience is so rewarding that you gladly pay $50 for that kind of games. God of War wasn’t such a long game either (around 10 hours) but the combat was great, the story was more than adequate and the scope of the game really gave you the sensation that you were fighting against Ares and his minions.
As many of you have said, this generation of games puts too much emphasis in building a beautiful experience instead of a rewarding one. With development costs on the rise, companies often can’t delay a game to polish gameplay elements without the risk of losing sales and not recovering their investment. It’s the tradeoff we are paying for beautiful HD rendered scenery and why I think the Wii aproach is the correct one in the end.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Wow… I’m surprised to find out that the review snippet was about Heavenly Sword, which along with Lair they were supposed to be the PS3’s “must have” titles that would justify all the hardware they put in that thing!
I don’t celebrate such failures, though: Take 5, the developer of Lair, was also the developer of what I think was one of the best AND best-looking game for the GameCube: Star Wars Rogue Squadron II: Rogue Leader! Their production problems started long before they went over to work for Sony, though, they made some really bad choices for the development of Star Wars Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike, which bombed pretty badly too.
And while gameplay should be the focus of any developer while designing a game (kudos to Miyamoto on that!), designing and implementing textures and poly count on a PS3 game can’t be that easy, either. That’s what the problem is right now with the PS3 games: developers are too pressured to deliver a game that “looks like it is running on the PS3″! On the other hand, some developers are using the opposite reasoning to deliver unjustifiably bad graphics on many Wii games… and they can get away with it, too! (I, for one, enjoyed the Tiger Wood’s PGA Tour on Wii far more than the much better-looking 360 equivalent, mostly due to the Wii controls, of course.)
September 12th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Wait a minute!
I was just reading some of the reviews in Metacritic, and the game doesn’t sound that bad!
True, the other reviews more or less confirm that the gameplay is kind of shallow, but it sounds like many of our Wii’s “casual games”, doesn’t it??
I don’t mind playing a game I can finish in seven hours, especially if it is full of eye-candy (although I would mind paying $60 for it, to be sure).
September 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
I disagree, I know the game you’re talking about. It’s directed by a movie director so that’s all I was expecting. I think that as long as the video game industry is expanding in all directions it’s a good thing. There are casual games, hardcore games, and cinematic games. (there are plenty more but it doesn’t matter) Point being, I think games like this are good for the industry. It’s possible that the Film industry and the Video Game industry could get even closer in a sense with these types of games. And that’s definitely not a bad thing. Especially with companies like Nintendo on the other side balancing it out with casual and gameplay focused titles.
September 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Variety is the spice. There’s room for high-def shallow shooter gameplay in the market. There’s also room for Wii sports.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
i believe there is no room for games that don’t have ‘gameplay.’ it’s ok for a game to be cinematic and have passably enjoyable gameplay and be short but be incredible. but you can’t remove the gameplay. on the flip, if a movie was unwatchable, who cares if it’s got the most important message ever. it fails at being itself even if the constituent parts aren’t all failures.
taking the analogy from a different angle, movies aren’t all judged on their interactivity, even if monty python fans only truely enjoy a movie after they memorize the lines, or rocky horror picture show fans only enjoy that movie in drag and bondage. go for the theater experience if you want real. thus, i say that games should not be judged on cinematic merits as though it were a necessity, but games having it should certainly be considered better for it.
so basically, the moderate outlook on gaming is the best, so basically i said nothing since the moderate outlook on everything is always best. always.
September 12th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I vote with my wallet, but I do agree that OVERALL gaming on any platform over the last 5+ years has shallow gameplay, not much variety or story, and extremely short.
I just finished Bioshock and Metroid Prime 3 in the last 3 weeks. I loved them both but they BOTH suffered from shortness and sometimes shallow gameplay. Worth the money yes… but not by much really.
I have MP3 Friend Vouchers if anyone wants one… email me.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Update:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic
http://www.penny-arcade.com/
Like I said, I’m starting to see a pattern here — and its much wider than this mystery title I have yet to name by name.
September 12th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Whoops.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/
September 12th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
The thing with that review, is that not all reviews are like that. Most reviews give the typical flashy shooter a high score. I have a feeling they are paid off to do it. How is it possible that all of EA sports titles garner a 9 plus score every year if they are basically the same game? It’s not because they’re that good, I can tell you that.