Does anybody notice that these days, most games seem to be closer to
interactive CG films then, well, games? If you were to go out and pick
up the new hit blockbuster game, such as Metal Gear Solid, Heavy Rain,
Final Fantasy, etc, chances are you will spend countless minutes, if not
hours, sitting back sipping beer while watching these “epic”
cut-scenes, many of which have poor voice acting. Then, during the
actual “interactive” portions, you are strung along through highly
scripted scenarios, traveling through narrow corridors with limited
guidelines and boundaries. Maybe you kill a few enemies as you pass
through, or have to find a key, only to walk through another corridor,
thus triggering another cut-scene, and the process repeats. This
repetitive and often predictable formula seems to be restricting and
regressive in terms of the evolution of games, yet they tend to be the
mechanical foundation from which most games today are built. Somehow
this simple and restricting blueprint generally tends to masquerade as a
deep, complex, and epic game.
How did this illusion come to be?
Well, essentially, the simple gameplay and limited freedom seems to take a backseat to the aesthetics; graphical horsepower, cut-scenes, dialogue, audio, story, etc. A common thread here is that these are all qualities that are highly valued in film-making. So what you have now is games that are trying to emulate films, and in doing so, often skimping out on actual gameplay mechanics and freedom in favor of emphasizing and enriching the “artistic” values.
For my money at least, games should be about maximizing choices of the player. The less choice, or freedom, you are provided within a game, the more likely the player is going to become bored with your game. While the primary purpose of games is to provide entertainment, I would contend that a major secondary purpose consumers look for is empowerment. Players want to save the world, rescue the princess, create and manage a military base, own some Nazi Zombies, etc. You offer this empowerment by letting users create, manipulate, collect, and grow as much as possible in your game. This is why games such as World of Warcraft and Starcraft have become such phenomenons. When you play these games, you feel as if the world is at your fingertips, because you have seemingly unlimited choice and customization, which likewise, offers seemingly unlimited different outcomes.
Similarly, many games of the past adhered to this formula of freedom as well. The Legend of Zelda for NES, Super Mario Brothers, many old RPGs such as Dragon Quest, even a game as deceptively simple as Tetris, all put the freedom of the gameplay completely in the hand of the gamer. While the notion that these small, 2D games actually contain MORE freedom than modern 3D epics might sound absurd to you, hear me out. Think of all the choices you could make in these games. In tetris, every single little move you made created COMPLETELY different outcomes – and these qualities are shared in many other oldschool games (and games that tend to sell the most, which is not by coincidence). You don’t get this sense with modern games. No matter what you do, you seem to end up in the same situation, with the same weapons, the same objectives, and the same cutscenes.
Older games offered more pure gameplay “scenarios,” or crossroads within the game, if you will. The art and cinematics did not dominate the games, because frequently, they were not even there to be seen in the first place. Games of the past did not have the hardware to flex their horsepower muscle, so that had to rely on the gameplay itself, and the imagination of the player. Playing through many older games, I felt like I was in the driver’s seat, and the game was merely the landscape within which I could explore anywhere I pleased. With many modern games, I feel more like I am in the passenger’s seat, sitting back while I am being guided by the predetermined direction of the game, gazing upon the visuals but having little control of my experience.
So why have games today become more restricted – at least if we eliminate the exterior noise from the equation?
Much of it has to do with the horsepower simply taking up all the space the game play freedom and mechanics used to. If you walk through even what appears to be an open world, you’ll probably soon collide with this magical invisible wall running from the ground all the way up to god knows where. It is the developers making due with what they’ve got to work with. Obviously, that open world could not REALLY be miles long, otherwise the console would explode from all the data it was forced to process. Of course, there are some large scale “sandbox” games that get away with these sort of limitless massive worlds (GTA, Elderscrolls: Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Minecraft come to mind, which I will discuss their awesomeness in future articles by the way). This is because their are no cutscenes and flashy special effects to clog that extra data.
So essentially, modern game makers have cut back on gameplay elements that makes games unique, player customization, and freedom, to make way for more of the aesthetics. As a result, we are left with these massive blockbuster games that resemble major Hollywood movies, but when boiled down to their core, have little substance in terms of complex gameplay and content. I don’t mean to knock these types of games, and if you prefer this interactive movie style, more power to you. Also, for the record, I love epic films that engross the viewer and transport you to new worlds. Personally though, I’d either rather play a game, or sit back, relax, and enjoy an engrossing movie. I generally don’t like to mix the two.
The Bite Sized Version:
Modern games = becoming more like movies, because of their often restricting gameplay and high emphasis on “epic” cinematics, story, visuals, and dialogue.
Maximum choice, or “freedom” within games which bring maximum numbers of effects to the player = better games with more appeal.
How did this illusion come to be?
Well, essentially, the simple gameplay and limited freedom seems to take a backseat to the aesthetics; graphical horsepower, cut-scenes, dialogue, audio, story, etc. A common thread here is that these are all qualities that are highly valued in film-making. So what you have now is games that are trying to emulate films, and in doing so, often skimping out on actual gameplay mechanics and freedom in favor of emphasizing and enriching the “artistic” values.
For my money at least, games should be about maximizing choices of the player. The less choice, or freedom, you are provided within a game, the more likely the player is going to become bored with your game. While the primary purpose of games is to provide entertainment, I would contend that a major secondary purpose consumers look for is empowerment. Players want to save the world, rescue the princess, create and manage a military base, own some Nazi Zombies, etc. You offer this empowerment by letting users create, manipulate, collect, and grow as much as possible in your game. This is why games such as World of Warcraft and Starcraft have become such phenomenons. When you play these games, you feel as if the world is at your fingertips, because you have seemingly unlimited choice and customization, which likewise, offers seemingly unlimited different outcomes.
Similarly, many games of the past adhered to this formula of freedom as well. The Legend of Zelda for NES, Super Mario Brothers, many old RPGs such as Dragon Quest, even a game as deceptively simple as Tetris, all put the freedom of the gameplay completely in the hand of the gamer. While the notion that these small, 2D games actually contain MORE freedom than modern 3D epics might sound absurd to you, hear me out. Think of all the choices you could make in these games. In tetris, every single little move you made created COMPLETELY different outcomes – and these qualities are shared in many other oldschool games (and games that tend to sell the most, which is not by coincidence). You don’t get this sense with modern games. No matter what you do, you seem to end up in the same situation, with the same weapons, the same objectives, and the same cutscenes.
Older games offered more pure gameplay “scenarios,” or crossroads within the game, if you will. The art and cinematics did not dominate the games, because frequently, they were not even there to be seen in the first place. Games of the past did not have the hardware to flex their horsepower muscle, so that had to rely on the gameplay itself, and the imagination of the player. Playing through many older games, I felt like I was in the driver’s seat, and the game was merely the landscape within which I could explore anywhere I pleased. With many modern games, I feel more like I am in the passenger’s seat, sitting back while I am being guided by the predetermined direction of the game, gazing upon the visuals but having little control of my experience.
So why have games today become more restricted – at least if we eliminate the exterior noise from the equation?
Much of it has to do with the horsepower simply taking up all the space the game play freedom and mechanics used to. If you walk through even what appears to be an open world, you’ll probably soon collide with this magical invisible wall running from the ground all the way up to god knows where. It is the developers making due with what they’ve got to work with. Obviously, that open world could not REALLY be miles long, otherwise the console would explode from all the data it was forced to process. Of course, there are some large scale “sandbox” games that get away with these sort of limitless massive worlds (GTA, Elderscrolls: Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Minecraft come to mind, which I will discuss their awesomeness in future articles by the way). This is because their are no cutscenes and flashy special effects to clog that extra data.
So essentially, modern game makers have cut back on gameplay elements that makes games unique, player customization, and freedom, to make way for more of the aesthetics. As a result, we are left with these massive blockbuster games that resemble major Hollywood movies, but when boiled down to their core, have little substance in terms of complex gameplay and content. I don’t mean to knock these types of games, and if you prefer this interactive movie style, more power to you. Also, for the record, I love epic films that engross the viewer and transport you to new worlds. Personally though, I’d either rather play a game, or sit back, relax, and enjoy an engrossing movie. I generally don’t like to mix the two.
The Bite Sized Version:
Modern games = becoming more like movies, because of their often restricting gameplay and high emphasis on “epic” cinematics, story, visuals, and dialogue.
Maximum choice, or “freedom” within games which bring maximum numbers of effects to the player = better games with more appeal.
Comments
Post a Comment