• 17Aug 06

  Better or Worse?

  It's not uncommon to come upon people clamoring about "how much better games were in the old days" and yada yada. I've always dismissed these people as nostalgist, who just liked the older games better since the experience was so new at the times and they themselves were younger (kids are easy to entertain). But recently been beginning to feel the same way myself. The disturbing trend I see in nowadays is the lack of "pure gameplay". Some games seem to be striving to meet all other sorts of demands instead of just giving us pure, unspoiled gameplay. Story is not the problem, at least not for me. Games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid has always been like movies because of the thick story and numourous cutscenes. And that's not bad, because it still has interactivity and that makes it better than an movie. What bugs me is realism. You often notice (and hear about others who noticed) these things that aren't realistic, but not necessary in a game. I don't die if I don't eat, and there are no toilets in any house, but does it matter? No, in fact, realism can often get in the way of gameplay, simply by setting restraints. The thing is, games are a way of escaping reality, just like movies or anything fictous. I don't want completely realistic games simply because I don't want to play reality, I want to enter another world, where things aren't as boring as in this one. The Sims you say? I've played it serious once, and it got tedious quick. It's only really fun when you're abusing the game, killing off entire familys in fires or making unbeleivable ugly people date.
  Something else that ticks me off is the so called, in a good word, "open endedness". I call it a game without a purpose. I like a goal. I like the feeling when you complete a game. What I don't like is when the game basicly tells me: "Ok, pick a class. Now heres a sword and a shield, go out there and do something!" Me: "Do what?". Game: "Well, you could collect some gear, or do some quests." Me: "For what purpose?". Game: "Because you can!" Me: "Then I'll press alt-f4! Because I can! Bye!". Obvious reference to Oblivion, though it werent that bad since it at least had a central campaing. Games are meant to have a goal, kinda lies in the word "game". The goal of a singleplayer game is to beat it, multiplayer you are meant to beat your opponent. Imagine a card game where you can lay 3  cards from your hand onto the stack each turn, and if you can get a straight of 5 cards you can pickup the entire stack. That's it. No way of winning, no way of beating your opponents. Kinda pointless, huh? You can play on till you get bored, which I estimate is within 5.6 seconds. That's how I feel about "open ended" games.
  I beat Megaman Zero 4 the other day. Gamespot gave it a puny score, but in my eyes it deserved a 9.6. In the last year I've played Oblivion, Civilizations 4 and a hell lotta World of Warcraft, but none of them can stack of against the thrill of playing a Megaman game again. Okay, WoW may, but only because it's a social game. In fact, I don't really like the basic gameplay of WoW, only the fun in socialising with like minded people in a fantastic setting like Azeroth. But Megaman Zero 4 had what none of those other, high scoring games had: Pure, strong gameplay. A little dose of brief, but good story, nice graphics (I like them better than those of the 3d megamans), and lots of replayability in form of unlockables and diffrent  difficultys. Please, return to making simple games, that has emphasis on the gameplay, instead of all those things a game simply doesn't need.
  
  • Posted Aug 17, 2006 2:51 pm PT
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »