I've given this an inordinate amount of thought over the past few days, and I've found myself developing an opinion in opposition to even my own up until this point about casual gaming. I'm not sure why I started thinking about it, but I inevitably did and I even trapped my girlfriend into talking about it with me. And I came up with an opinion.
Casual gaming is bad for video games, but not for the reason that everyone might think.
You see, I've been a huge supporter of the concept of video games as an artistic medium and it's something I've argued for for a good many years. I think that video games are just as legitimate of an art form as film, music, or print, and are in many ways a superior medium due to their combination of visuals, sound, text, and interactivity. The acceptance of video games as such has gained a huge foothold in the mainstream over the last two generations, and things have been good.
The Casual Gaming Revolution, however, looks like it might threaten to defeat all of the progress that games have made thus far. Not because it will end to the "end of hardcore games", or even the "end of hard games", but because it could potentially alter the public mindset that games are, ultimately, just toys.
There is nothing wrong with a Wii Fit game. Certainly, games like Dance Dance Revolution have existed for many years and have thus far not lead to the downfall of gaming due to the inclusion of a dance mat. I do, though, see there being a problem with a huge scale proliferation of games like Wii Fit wherein the only reason individuals are buying the console is to purchase the game. People see the game as the reason to own the console, as though it only exists for that purpose. They see no greater meaning in their Wii because hang-on developers continue to put out me-too titles and publishers refuse to give games worthy of recognition the advertising they deserve to actually make an impact. Suddenly, the purpose of a game is not to transport you to a different time and place, and allow you to take what is both a cinematic and genuinely entertaining and engaging journey--but instead now the purpose of a game is no more profound than to be played. Not all games need to be a profound experience, but then not all games don't.
Now, I'm not calling for an all-out coup on casual games. Far from it, because they've always existed and they will always exist. Sometimes, to have fun, all you need is Mario characters playing mini-games in the context of a board game. What I worry about is when this proliferates to the point where it is all the mainstream consumer wants. When they don't need storylines, cinematic experiences, and intense audio packages, they're not going to be given them.
I look at games like LittleBigPlanet and Super Mario Galaxy and I see what a great casual game should be: Immediately accessible to everyone with many layers of depth hidden not too far beneath the surface. You play to the casual gamers without patronizing them, and certainly without excluding the great experiences that brought games to where they are today. In this way you--for lack of a better word--indoctrinate gamers into the fold in the way that the best games of the NES and SNES did.
To repeat myself: Casual games are not inherently bad. Sometimes all a person needs is five minutes to play a round of Tetris to be happy. An entire generation picked up a Game Boy for just that reason, but quickly found themselves engrossed in strategy and--there's that word again--depth. I make a call to all gamers who might read this humble little post: Support games that support art, no matter who made them and what system they're on. If you have the means, go multiplatform so you can play more good games and have more fun and prove to the video game industry that we as a whole still want games that take us to that different place and time and make us truly experience something with--dare I say it?--depth.
Jul 30, 2008
Jul 28, 2008
The Quest for Multi-Platform Gaming, Part 1.
To begin, I am most certainly not staging a full-scale exodus from all Nintendo gaming. I have played Nintendo games for many years and I am currently both enjoying the good games that are out and anticipating the games that will be coming out for both the Wii and the DS. I am, however, a firm believer in the idea that a good game should be played, no matter the console it is on. That said, I have born witness to a number of extremely high quality gaming experiences on the other two major game consoles. This has brought to my attention the fact that the time seems ripe for me to expand my horizons and venture into the yet uncharted realm of either the PS3 or the XBOX 360.
Now, in a perfect world, I could own all three major game consoles and easily purchase every good game that comes out. I would have fun, my girlfriend would have fun, the villagers would rejoice, and true Nirvana could be reached.
This is not, however, a perfect world. Alas, I will likely be able to fund the purchase of only one other game console and the games for that console. Now, would the selection of one over another really leave me all that disappointed? Probably not, but since we are dealing with what will no doubt be an expensive purchase I'd prefer to first weigh the pro's and con's of my choices.
We'll start with the 500 pound Gorilla in the room, the XBOX 360.
Now, the XBOX 360 has quite a bit under it's belt motivating me to make it my next console of choice. Because the system is so very close to a PC, development of games has been streamlined allowing for numerous very polished, very expansive projects. Most multiplatform games are designed first for the 360 then ported to the PS3, placing the often better product squarely in hands of the Microsoft faithful. There are still reports of frequent system failures that leaves me feeling what is little short of pre-buyer's remorse. It's just not something I want to deal with if I can help it.
The XBOX 360 does, however, seem to have more games I'm interested in, and the recent announcement of Final Fantasy XIII opens me up to the possibility of actually owning one--Previously, FFXIII's exclusivity to the PS3 locked-down the choice in the my mind. With heavy hitting exclusives like the Gears of War series in addition to the often superior multiplatform titles, I can't help but look at the 360 as the currently superior gaming console. The 360 also possesses the better online multiplayer service in XBOX Live, although there is the more than slight downside of having to pay for it. I never was a huge fan of the XBOX controller though...
The different SKUs also scare me off a bit. This isn't a problem exclusive to the 360 by any means, but I'm not entirely sure where the happy medium is when choosing which flavor to get. I'm really not looking to lay down $500 or more, but then I don't want to end up with a completely gimped system because I wanted to save a couple bucks.
To wrap it up shortly...
Pros:
-------
+Developer support and strong game history
+Robust online multiplayer and download service
+Newly more affordable
+Final Fantasy XIII
+The primary headliner in game technology
Cons:
--------
-Different SKUs
-Longevity questions
-Attracts a certain type of gamer, and thus a certain type of game
-Online multiplayer costs money
-No convincing reason outside of games to purchase
Now, in a perfect world, I could own all three major game consoles and easily purchase every good game that comes out. I would have fun, my girlfriend would have fun, the villagers would rejoice, and true Nirvana could be reached.
This is not, however, a perfect world. Alas, I will likely be able to fund the purchase of only one other game console and the games for that console. Now, would the selection of one over another really leave me all that disappointed? Probably not, but since we are dealing with what will no doubt be an expensive purchase I'd prefer to first weigh the pro's and con's of my choices.
We'll start with the 500 pound Gorilla in the room, the XBOX 360.
Now, the XBOX 360 has quite a bit under it's belt motivating me to make it my next console of choice. Because the system is so very close to a PC, development of games has been streamlined allowing for numerous very polished, very expansive projects. Most multiplatform games are designed first for the 360 then ported to the PS3, placing the often better product squarely in hands of the Microsoft faithful. There are still reports of frequent system failures that leaves me feeling what is little short of pre-buyer's remorse. It's just not something I want to deal with if I can help it.
The XBOX 360 does, however, seem to have more games I'm interested in, and the recent announcement of Final Fantasy XIII opens me up to the possibility of actually owning one--Previously, FFXIII's exclusivity to the PS3 locked-down the choice in the my mind. With heavy hitting exclusives like the Gears of War series in addition to the often superior multiplatform titles, I can't help but look at the 360 as the currently superior gaming console. The 360 also possesses the better online multiplayer service in XBOX Live, although there is the more than slight downside of having to pay for it. I never was a huge fan of the XBOX controller though...
The different SKUs also scare me off a bit. This isn't a problem exclusive to the 360 by any means, but I'm not entirely sure where the happy medium is when choosing which flavor to get. I'm really not looking to lay down $500 or more, but then I don't want to end up with a completely gimped system because I wanted to save a couple bucks.
To wrap it up shortly...
Pros:
-------
+Developer support and strong game history
+Robust online multiplayer and download service
+Newly more affordable
+Final Fantasy XIII
+The primary headliner in game technology
Cons:
--------
-Different SKUs
-Longevity questions
-Attracts a certain type of gamer, and thus a certain type of game
-Online multiplayer costs money
-No convincing reason outside of games to purchase
Jul 25, 2008
Postage Stamps and Other Fun Titles
I wrote this up as a post that I never made over on the Smash World Forums. It seems that anybody who sees any weakness in the Wii automatically wants to go buy another system. This was my response.
Why have the Xbox 360 and the PS3 suddenly become the holy grail of gaming? Many of you speak as though they are the “Final Solution to the Wii Problem”, and are turning to them in droves, like moths to flame. From the start of this generation, both Microsoft and Sony have been stroking the dicks of every 17-24 year old male gamer, touting “Better graphics, more killing, MORE MATURE”, and I see very little but easily swayed minds buying wholesale into the philosophy. You claim that the Wii's games are too short, too easy, and too casual, but the grasses are not as green as they might seem on the other side.
Huge 360/PS3 games such as Resistance, Bioshock, Gears of War, and Metal Gear Solid 4 are all sub-20 hour games that—so I've been told—can be beaten by a learning-disabled chicken. The visuals are pretty and the bullets do fly, but the games are not necessarily better by any stretch of the imagination. These are not bad games, however, do not mistake my criticism for blind fanboy fury, and the people that enjoy them are certainly right to—I might well enjoy my fair share of them myself. But they are not the solution to your gaming problems, no matter how strongly you might wish that they will be. Ask any intelligent owner of a 360 or a PS3 and you will hear tales of hosts of problems, both with the games and with the systems themselves—just like the problems you might have with the Wii. The holy grail does not exist on the other side of the river, and the grass might look better but it will taste just the same.
Nintendo's consoles are the closest thing to an open standard that exists in modern home console gaming: Nintendo licenses its technology, but does not censor the content that makes its way to the system. This has lead to a supreme overabundance of shovelware titles, to be sure, but I personally would rather that developers be free to develop their titles exactly as they see fit without the interference of the console manufacturers deciding for us what games we get to play. Microsoft and Sony choose which games “fit” the image they wish to present, and only license those for release. Nintendo, having no such system, allows developers to create exactly the games they want, not the games that Nintendo necessarily wants.
Add to that the fact that both Sony and Microsoft will soon be introducing their own casual-aimed experiences, and you may yourself in a perpetual state of deja vu.
I am not saying that you should not buy another console, because I certainly intend to myself. There are games worth playing for them and by all means, a game worth playing should be played. But do not go into the experience thinking that it is the ultimate solution to your video game problems, and that you will suddenly be satisfied all over again, because you almost certainly will not be. Consider the plight of the DS owners who in despair sold their systems to buy PSPs, only to repurchase them again once DS system sales turned into an onslaught of quality games.
Just wait and see, thus is the fate of the Wii. Sales turn into games, it's a simple rule of the industry.
Why have the Xbox 360 and the PS3 suddenly become the holy grail of gaming? Many of you speak as though they are the “Final Solution to the Wii Problem”, and are turning to them in droves, like moths to flame. From the start of this generation, both Microsoft and Sony have been stroking the dicks of every 17-24 year old male gamer, touting “Better graphics, more killing, MORE MATURE”, and I see very little but easily swayed minds buying wholesale into the philosophy. You claim that the Wii's games are too short, too easy, and too casual, but the grasses are not as green as they might seem on the other side.
Huge 360/PS3 games such as Resistance, Bioshock, Gears of War, and Metal Gear Solid 4 are all sub-20 hour games that—so I've been told—can be beaten by a learning-disabled chicken. The visuals are pretty and the bullets do fly, but the games are not necessarily better by any stretch of the imagination. These are not bad games, however, do not mistake my criticism for blind fanboy fury, and the people that enjoy them are certainly right to—I might well enjoy my fair share of them myself. But they are not the solution to your gaming problems, no matter how strongly you might wish that they will be. Ask any intelligent owner of a 360 or a PS3 and you will hear tales of hosts of problems, both with the games and with the systems themselves—just like the problems you might have with the Wii. The holy grail does not exist on the other side of the river, and the grass might look better but it will taste just the same.
Nintendo's consoles are the closest thing to an open standard that exists in modern home console gaming: Nintendo licenses its technology, but does not censor the content that makes its way to the system. This has lead to a supreme overabundance of shovelware titles, to be sure, but I personally would rather that developers be free to develop their titles exactly as they see fit without the interference of the console manufacturers deciding for us what games we get to play. Microsoft and Sony choose which games “fit” the image they wish to present, and only license those for release. Nintendo, having no such system, allows developers to create exactly the games they want, not the games that Nintendo necessarily wants.
Add to that the fact that both Sony and Microsoft will soon be introducing their own casual-aimed experiences, and you may yourself in a perpetual state of deja vu.
I am not saying that you should not buy another console, because I certainly intend to myself. There are games worth playing for them and by all means, a game worth playing should be played. But do not go into the experience thinking that it is the ultimate solution to your video game problems, and that you will suddenly be satisfied all over again, because you almost certainly will not be. Consider the plight of the DS owners who in despair sold their systems to buy PSPs, only to repurchase them again once DS system sales turned into an onslaught of quality games.
Just wait and see, thus is the fate of the Wii. Sales turn into games, it's a simple rule of the industry.
Jul 18, 2008
E3 Recap
I'll use this as a placeholder until I get around to actually writing my full-out thoughts of this year's E3. They're coming, just not right now.
Jul 9, 2008
de Blog to be as Awesome as Originally Hoped
http://wii.ign.com/articles/887/887265p1.html
de Blob, the Wii-exclusive platformer with the inventive painting mechanics, has been through an up and down thrillride for the last few months.
First, when it debuted, people hailed it's neat visual style, innovative ideas, and potentially fun gameplay. (UP!)
Then, when people got their hands on early builds of it, they found it unpolished with an unpredictable framerate and a disobedient camera. (DOWN!)
Next, after being worked on further, Joystiq reported that while it was fun, it got old after a few minutes. (VERY DOWN!)
Now, IGN has a pre-E3 hands-on and they're reporting that it is, indeed, awesome. The frame rate is locked solid at 60 fps and the difficulty is supposed to be way up there once you get into it. (UP +1!)
de Blob now officially LOOKS like it should be completely awesome as it nears completion. If it all comes together, Wii owners should be in for one hell of a fun game.
de Blob, the Wii-exclusive platformer with the inventive painting mechanics, has been through an up and down thrillride for the last few months.
First, when it debuted, people hailed it's neat visual style, innovative ideas, and potentially fun gameplay. (UP!)
Then, when people got their hands on early builds of it, they found it unpolished with an unpredictable framerate and a disobedient camera. (DOWN!)
Next, after being worked on further, Joystiq reported that while it was fun, it got old after a few minutes. (VERY DOWN!)
Now, IGN has a pre-E3 hands-on and they're reporting that it is, indeed, awesome. The frame rate is locked solid at 60 fps and the difficulty is supposed to be way up there once you get into it. (UP +1!)
de Blob now officially LOOKS like it should be completely awesome as it nears completion. If it all comes together, Wii owners should be in for one hell of a fun game.
Jul 6, 2008
The Definition of Hardcore
We engaged in a lively discussion over at the Smash World Forums recently relating to the definition of a hardcore game (as opposed to a casual game, natch). While certain other users wished to use complicated specifications regarding to the longevity and dedication of a game's community, I wanted it to be more simple and all-consuming than that. This was the definition of a hardcore game that I came up with:
Any game in which successful completion or demonstration of skill requires a significant investment of both time and effort on the part of the player.
I think this covers pretty much every game considered "hardcore", as well as games that blur the line between hardcore and casual. It also doesn't insert the requirement of a community or an online multiplayer or competitive play. This also successfully leaves out games that have communities, yet clearly don't fit the "hardcore" label (i.e., The Sims). I think it works pretty well, and I might submit it to Urban Dictionary or Wikitionary.
D Haines
Jul 2, 2008
Chrono Trigger DS
The internets have been afire for the last few days following the announcement that the SNES classic Chrono Trigger would be coming to DS. Details are almost nonexistent, but if WiiNintendo.com is to be believed, the game is not going to be a remake in the vein of Final Fantasy IV, but rather an "enhanced port". All we can do now is wait and see what that actually means, but if I might say so, it sounds joygasmic.
D Haines
Fruits of Game Discussion: Why the Wii isn't yet a failure
I've been engaged lately in a lively conversion over on the Smash World Forums about whether or not there are any good Wii games coming out. I, predictably, came out in full force to defend the Wii, citing Guitar Hero: World Tour, Tenchu, and Fatal Frame. Others there picked apart the Wii's lacking graphical capabilites (have they even seen Mario Galaxy?!), historically shoddy third-party support (I'll cover that one in a bit), and less-than-desirable online gameplay (okay--they can have that one). Obviously, there was no clear winner in a discussion such as this, but I happen to think that us Wii-defenders fared pretty well. Here's to hoping we're not going to end up like those Dreamcast guys...*shudders*
The way I see it, the Wii's current "lack" of "good" games is a product of a few different elements that have come together to create a relative drought, but certainly not a permanent one.
Reason 1.) Nintendo was predictably tight-lipped in the months leading up to the Wii's launch, and from what I've heard that included developers. The dev kits most companies were working with were little more than Gamecubes and TV remotes. Most developers didn't get their hands on the Wii until we as consumers did. A lot of companies were just thinking it'd be another 360, so when it turned out that the Wii was less powerful than originally predicted, a great deal of scaling back had to take place. Add to that the fact that the Wii's specs have still not been officially released as far as I'm aware of, and you've got a machine that developers were stuck with on day one trying to figure out for themselves.
PS3 developers just began using the same graphics that they had been using on the 360, even though the PS3 is the technically superior console. To date, they've still been using essentially the same graphical engines that drive 360 games. The Wii hasn't had the benefit of an existing engine to drive it's graphics (unless you count the PS2. Urghhh...) so it's engines have had to been built from the ground up.
Reason 2.) Developers only started to realize that not only was the Wii the current-gen leader, but also that it was here to stay around the middle to end of 2007. Assuming that a good game will take roughly 1 1/2-2 years to develop, we will just start seeing the first fruits of that labor near the end of this year. Conversely, we've seen a Wii market flooded by casual games because they take a great deal less time to develop. Time will deliver hardcore games to the console yet, if gamers would just be patient.
Reason 3.) Casual games sell consoles, it's as simple as that. It's the not-quite-gamers who only want a system for one or two games that create a market share. Then, it's that market share that they've created that drives developers to make hardcore games for the console.
Take my mother, for example. She purchased a DS for the sole purpose of playing Animal Crossing--no ambition of further great games that would be released, no worries about how it looks that she owns the system, just a desire to play Animal Crossing. Yet, that DS she bought shows up on sales charts and makes developers look and say, "Wow, with this many DSs sold, we might be able to develop a game and sell it." They know that not every single person who bought a DS will buy their game, but if only a million people do, they've got a hit.
That, in a slightly large nutshell, is what the discussion consisted of. I just implore any Wii owners to just wait a bit longer--the games are coming. Patience.
D Haines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
