First, before you check this piece out, go read McDank’s piece on “What
Gamers Want.” Why? Because this is a rebuttal piece, and it
certainly isn’t about to make sense if you don’t read that first.
But basically, this is to address the parts where I think he’s
totally off base.
First,
let’s get something off our chests – you are never, ever going to
get gamers to agree on what they want. You’ve got better luck
getting people to agree on the best pizza topping, and there’s only
about 20 of those in regular rotation at your average pizza place.
McDank’s list is a solid list of what a modern day or futuristic
first-person shooter fan will want. Well, lest anyone get the wrong
idea, not everyone is a fan of the genre. Personally, most of them
bore me, and that’s why I let other people review them. So if
manufacturers actually follow up on his suggestions, it’s going to
kill on what I feel is the most lacking element in the industry –
innovation.
Let’s
face it, quite a few companies are so bad that they’ll quickly just
knock off of their own games.
Are you listening,
Rare and Eidos? I understand that some things are just going to end
up being repeated anyhow, but do they have to do so this
frequently? Innovation has been a problem for quite some time in
the industry, and imploring everyone to make better first person
shooters is not about to solve the problem.
Another
serious problem that I have with McDank’s editorial is one I find
rampant in gaming; gaming is overpopulated by weapon fetishists.
McDank’s view is that gaming needs more guns, preferably real world
guns. I wasn’t aware that video games lacked guns in any degree.
To tell the truth, isn’t an over-abundance of weaponry often cited
as one of the problems gaming has? Yeah, let’s just intensify that
scrutiny, thanks.
And
it’s not just FPS fans that are guilty on this count. I’m going to
call to task fans of my favorite genre, console role-playing games.
Raise your hand, and be honest, if one of the things you really
liked about Cloud in Final Fantasy 7 was the fact that his swords
were twice his size? Nobody in an RPG, it seems, can just carry
around a sword. It has to be stylized, carrying tons of sashes,
have an unusual shape, and look outlandish. RPGs are constantly
going through sword envy, as in who can make the flashiest one. Is
there any wonder that Freudian psychologists have a field day when
discussing video gamers?
I think
we’ve established, by now, that gaming already has more weapons than
it knows what to do with. So to move to the next problem – getting
gamers to test games. the problem is that, and call me an elitist
snob on this one, that your average gamer has no business testing a
game. Yeah, go ahead and send your flames now, but consider this:
who do you think tests these games? Game companies pay testers, and
what kind of people are going to apply for a job that requires you
to play games? Yep, gamers. In other words, we already have gamers
testing these games out, and it’s obvious that isn’t quite cutting
it more often than not. Even when the testers don’t like the game
and recommend either scrapping it or totally reworking it, the
companies more often than not refuse to listen.
Also,
I’d like to point out that McDank wants to have it both ways when it
comes to game development. He says that he wants companies to stop
developing games as if they were movies. He then proceeds to rattle
off several games with development budgets and subsequent work done
on them that is much like a movie. You know why the industry wants
to emulate movies? Because movies, in general, are successful,
profitable, and entertaining; the video game industry wisely wants
to be the same. And you know, I think it benefits the industry to
have this. RPGs are often more entertaining today because people
actually work on those scripts. McDank loves the Grand Theft Auto
games; how far would those open-ended scenarios have gotten without
solid scripting and directing?
That
leads me to another shibboleth to banish – gaming needs to be
open-ended. Honestly, that’s hogwash. Yes, it is good for some
games to be open-ended. But many classic games, including some of
the ones mentioned by McDank, were very direct in terms of build.
Try telling me that Goldeneye was at all open ended, and I’ll laugh
you out of the room. It was very direct, since you just followed
the movie’s plot. More often than not, making a game open-ended
just indicates a lack of direction, like in Square’s recent Saga
games. Solid scripting is required to make sure games are open
ended without being directionless.
So, in
the end, what does this gamer want? I want a game that is solidly
built, with enough story for me to enjoy it. This could mean as
complex as a Steinbeck novel, or as simple as River City Ransom’s
“save the girl” story. I want the game to be different in its
approach -–it can even blatantly rip off certain aspects from other
games, as long as the package is different and works well. The
controls, the graphics, and sound have to be solid. They don’t have
to be amazing, but they have to be done cleanly. It’s really not
much to ask, but it’s really amazing how few games pull it off.
