Don’t Forget 2008 in 2009

A happy holidays to everyone! I thought about doing a list of top games I’m looking forward to in 2009, like most popular media outlets, but I don’t feel that there’s anything interesting to be found there. Perhaps when there’s more information which can shave that list down to a top five or so. Right now I don’t know much more than the articles that others are posting.

Reading these articles, however, has reminded me of just how powerful the hype machine is. You see, usually I get one game for Christmas and that becomes my holiday obsession. Last year it was Assassin’s Creed. This year, however, I received a copy of Spider-Man: Web of Shadows. A solid game to be sure, but also one I completed three days before Christmas. When my sister asked what game I wanted in exchange I was confronted with a strange thought: there are tons of great games from 2008 that I haven’t played and which the media has already forgotten. I’m not talking about the nasty habit of the media turning on a game a few weeks after adoring it. No, I’m talking about game websites and magazines doing their “Top 10 (or 5 or 20 or whatever) of 2008” and then carefully burying all those games into the past as if to say “There’s nothing good to play until we get some new releases!”

I’m not about to start attacking the media for this. Their business is information, and if that information isn’t new it isn’t sellable. I get that. But I suppose that’s why I enjoy blogs as well. Blogs by real gamers will often be packed with games people are playing when they aren’t paid to force their way through them in two days. These blogs often have hidden gems or even just more genuine experiences which will mirror those of the average consumer, and they will talk about what people are playing right now, not six months in the future. Who would have thought the present would be fresh?

Where am I going with all this? I’m just trying to put out there the idea that there are some very decent games of 2008 which a lot of people are going to overlook because they didn’t get them on launch. I’m not talking about monolithic behemoths like Gears of War 2 but rather games you probably heard of and forgot almost as quickly: Far Cry 2, Tomb Raider Underworld, Dead Space, even Prince of Persia. I can’t recommend any of these personally since I haven’t played them yet, but I would encourage you to go out and rent some. Hell, while you’re at it you might as well rent potential flops such as Quantum of Solace and Sonic Unleashed. You never know when you might find your own hidden gem. I can tell you for sure that I’ll be looking to some of these games in January rather than Resident Evil 5^*, but then again, that’s just me.

_{*: It ought to be noted that this is not because I’m hating on Resident Evil 5, but I could never get into that series and even if this game is the most awesome game of all time I’m more than willing to pass until I can check out some great stuff I might have missed.}

Multiplayer Mayhem!

Given the fact that I’ve been gaming since the NES days, I carry a certain amount of nostalgia in my perspective on games. Like many of my generation, I have fond memories of playing video games for hours too close to old televisions and of over-night marathons with friends to get past just one more boss. As I’ve grown older my gaming habits have changed but multiplayer continues to be something special. I have a friend with whom I get together at least once a month to play a variety of “couch-based” multiplayer games.

Unlike many Xbox 360 users, Xbox Live isn’t where I do most of my multiplayer gaming. In fact, I’ve thought about letting my gold membership lapse next year since I really only used it when I was really into Halo 3. This lack of enthusiasm is most likely due to the fact that I don’t really try to expand my friends list or make time for multiplayer gaming during my average week. Don’t get me wrong, I think that Xbox Live is awesome, and this is truly a feature that puts Microsoft head and shoulders above the competition. I’m just saying that it’s not necessarily what I need. Much of my fun, comparing Gamerscores and using the marketplace, can be done with a silver account and I just don’t feel competitive enough to take it to the series of tubes.

Just because I don’t use Live doesn’t mean I don’t play multiplayer. Like I mentioned before, I get together with a friend pretty regular to game, often with a few others. We’ll spend a whole day just switching through five or six games. This style of multiplayer is what I see as an evolution of the marathon sessions I used to experience in my NES days. I do concede that where I used to be content to play with just one other player, or heaven forbid pass the controller, I now expect four-player madness. That just makes sense to me. Where before we were content to party while passing two guitars around for Guitar Hero we now must have at least a set of drums going at all times, and someone will be forced to sing if we’ve got four participants.

So far I would say that I haven’t written anything out of the ordinary. Who doesn’t love playing games with their friends while sharing a pizza? What I find strange is that videogame developers seem to be snubbing this style of social play. The first call in opposition of this statement is to look at Rock Band and Guitar Hero World Tour. These games encourage, nay, almost demand four-player socialization out of the box. It would appear that social gaming is at its peak with these über-popular titles, and I agree that these titles exemplify the multiplayer which I am most fond of. Most other games, however, which have strong multiplayer potential are keeping their co-op or versus limited to Live. Here are just a few titles which are playable only with a one-player-one-console interface: Burnout Paradise, Pure, The Orange Box, and Left 4 Dead. My first reaction is what makes the most sense: these developers are being asked/told/suggested by Microsoft that their multiplayer should be on-line only to boost Live subscription sales and perhaps steer users towards DLC. My second reaction is one of deep disappointment. I recognize that not all players have access to televisions larger than average, but for users like my friend who has a 58” television there’s lots of room for split-screen play. I mean, racing games and shooters with team-focussed mechanics are perfect for playing with a room full of friends. Left 4 Dead is one which I am most disappointed to hear about, since the bulwark of that game is cooperation. I suppose that isolating the players does add a certain amount to the atmosphere, and perhaps watching others’ screens can take away from some of the challenge of having to communicate what you’re seeing, but never the less I would expect more from a top-tier developer like Valve.

Now that we’ve identified the crisis (and I do believe this is a crisis) in multiplayer, what are we to do? I propose that there be a multiplayer manifesto which gamers create. Such a manifesto could outline various areas which developers ought not to overlook in development and which will be required for reviews to be favourable. Items which ought to be included are two- or four-player split-screen play for racing and FPS games and the ability to turn on and customize bots in FPS games. The list of requirements can also be turned around to on-line play. What about LEGO Batman having co-op but no on-line co-op? I think on-line co-op for any game with co-op is a no brainer, not to mention competitive leader boards for games with time trials.

I’m not saying that every game has to have split-screen, or even that every game has to have multiplayer, but I do think that when multiplayer is implemented in a game design it ought to be done properly and not as an afterthought. I think it would be a great disservice for our industry to take a step backwards under the veil of modernization. While on-line is definitely a space we should promote and explore it should not be implemented at the expense of the living room.

Most Fun in 2008

It’s that time of year again: every videogame media outlet is posting their top games for the last year. I usually find these lists fairly uninteresting. They tend to all contain the major AAA titles that have been released, and which have already received a ton of press.^* Gamasutra does better than most others by having a variety of best-of lists, including Top 5 Downloadable Games and Top 5 Overlooked Games, with other categories presented and more still coming. However, most of the games on these lists end up being the big news stories from the past year, so I don’t really feel that they give the reader any particularly amazing new information.

I decided I would break the standard mould and rather than post my “Top Games of 2008” I am posting the games I had the most fun playing over the last twelve months. In no particular order, here they are:

Pure: I confess that I still have a lot of this game left to play, but right now I’ve lent it to my brother-in-law, which should tell you how highly I think of it. I normally don’t like any racing game other than kart racers, but Pure won me over. The graphics are sharp, and I would say pretty realistic, but the driving handles in a very arcade manner. They created a very simple control scheme which makes playing easy to get into and yet still tough to master. There’s a ton of customizability and the soundtrack is awesome. The only thing this game lacks is split-screen multiplayer (seriously!). I really enjoyed this game, and I can tell you that I plan on continuing to do so into 2009. I will warn you though: this is one of those games you think you will play for “Just 10 minutes” and loose an evening on.

Spider-Man: Web of Shadows: I’m currently playing this game, and I must say it’s pretty awesome. The controls are great and the game is worth the price for the combat options alone. Spider-Man fans will love it for sure, as they have great animations and a really big city to explore. The only places this game lets me down are the small things. The biggest of these is the writing. The story is great, but the actual script is pretty rough. The voice acting isn’t bad, but the voice for Spider-Man is awful. I didn’t realize how great Toby McGuire was until now. Even the voice from the new Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon would have been better. But these are minor annoyances in a huge game which I’m loving exploring for long periods in-between missions.

Crackdown: I know I was a little late to this one, but I must admit this game had some great action. Being the second sandbox game on my list, it must have been special to rank alongside Spider-Man. I’d say it does, though at least you’re a “super” cop. You could be a good guy or a badass. It had a variety of vehicles and it encouraged you to try driving recklessly at high speeds and take crazy jumps. The weapons were pretty cool and you got to upgrade your character to leap and climb all around the city. I still remember the first time I played and got on a rooftop. That’s when the fun began, and it didn’t stop for a long time. If you haven’t got a chance to play this game yet, and you like blowing things up, I recommend picking it up. The price should be pretty low by now and it’s easy to just play around for hours seeing what does and doesn’t catch on fire when you shoot it.

Penny Arcade Adventures: On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness Episode 1: If you’re a fan of Penny Arcade you ought to have this by now. If you don’t know if you are a fan, visit the site and read some comics first. If you like their sense of humour you’ll enjoy this turn-based RPG, and if you don’t laugh at them you will surely not enjoy it. The whole thing is very quirky, but the game is more than a mere gimmick. It’s a solid game with a great interface and interesting story. I enjoyed every minute of it and just got a card of MS points today to get the second episode. Here’s hoping there are more coming down the pipe next year.

Tetris Evolution: This is another game that’s been out a while, but I definitely had a lot of fun with it earlier in the year. I made a post about it earlier explaining why it’s great gaming value for your dollar, so I won’t go on about it. Tetris Evolution is just plain fun, whether by yourself or with others. I’ve tried the four-player local play and it’s as great as you would expect. Even more if you take the time to explore sub-menus. I can’t imagine getting rid of this game since I reach for it every once in a while when I just want some puzzling fun.

I do realize that many of these are games I’ve posted about earlier, but I do feel that many of them were not really focussed on in the mainstream. There are of course some honourable mentions: Fallout 3, Tomb Raider Legend, and Guitar Hero 3, amongst others. All that remains now is to look forward to next year and the great games we have to look forward to then. I have a feeling that next year’s list is going to contain some older releases too, but I guarantee I’m not about to stop looking at what’s coming up.

_{*Holiday Gift Guides are very similar, though on occasion they slip in the odd under-appreciated game. In my opinion all the AAA titles are probably already bought by gamers, so it would do the industry a whole lot of good, and lend a lot of integrity to journalism, if these lists contained games which are of great quality but haven’t sold so well. That way gamers won’t receive gifts that they bought for themselves a month earlier.}

Game Length VS Quality: A New Perspective

The argument has been made before that game length does not directly correspond to quality. Mr. Raroo over at Game Set Watch has written as much, and Portal’s success last year (and more success as Portal: Still Alive this year) serves as a perfect example that a game need not be long to be totally satisfying. Mr. Raroo also points out that there is little more disappointing than a quality game that includes pointless filler to lengthen its gameplay. That’s how I felt when playing Assassin’s Creed and was taunted to collect an unreasonable amount of flags, or the common “Defeat x number of enemies” in any open-world game.

This quandary is not, however, the focus of my post. I readily agree with Mr. Raroo, and many other journalists out there, that games may be of a high quality without lasting weeks while others may spoil themselves by stretching out that which should remain brief. What I wonder is if a game which is all quality may be hampered by being too lengthy. In short, can games have too much of a good thing?

When I first contemplated this idea I thought perhaps I was too rash. After all, bigger must be better, especially if it is all quality, right? Then I thought about precisely how hard-core one must be in order to explore a game that demands upwards of 50 hours of interaction. I surrender that there is a thriving hard-core market, but even a gamer who does little other than school/work and game ought to find a need to circumvent such excess. After all, many mature gamers are now finding themselves with responsibilities beyond gaming, such as families, which limit their available time.

I finished my first play through of Fallout 3 last week. Checking my last save point I clocked in at just under 80 hours of play time. I didn’t fill out all 1,000 gamerscore, but I got as many as I could on the first play. It didn’t take all that time to hit the maximum level of 20. I hit that after a few days. In fact, after a week or so of play I was done exploring the wasteland and levelling up. After another week I began to tire of the quests. I spent the rest of my time ploughing through the quests and gathering collectables. At this point I do think it appropriate to explain that I quite loved Fallout 3. The RPG elements were well produced, I enjoyed the combat, and the world was thoroughly interesting. What I began to find is that I just plain wanted to play another game. At the same time, however, I could not bring myself to set aside the game until I had completed the main plot at least once, for I feared I might loose my place as I would in a book. The result was a detraction from my enjoyment, and a rather “work-like” experience, which ought not to be found in a hobby.

What do I conclude from this? Certainly not that games ought to be shorter. I do believe that games which demand a full price ought to offer a full game. I remain steadfast in my belief that games should merit their expense in what they offer, and that those which have a short length should price themselves accordingly (another good move on the behalf of Portal). I offer this new premise, however, that games which may offer too much should perhaps hold something back. This extra content could be used in a sequel, or perhaps some DLC, but need not be crammed into a game, rendering it overcrowded. I understand that RPG’s are lengthy by their very nature, but a good game designer ought to be able to measure what an acceptable play through consists of. From here on in I will be sure to think twice before celebrating a game with a lengthy experience in order to make sure I do not tire of it too easily.

I do think it’s fair to say that I still think Fallout 3 is an amazing game, and I still plan on looking forward to a second, and third, play through the wasteland. That being said, I also believe I will not be purchasing any of the three DLC scenarios expected in the future. No, instead you will find me exploring other worlds on my 360, and sharing my gaming time with a variety of quality games.

The PR Machine

I had some trouble thinking of what to write today, but I think I’ll take a moment to look at something that’s been popping up on websites. I’m talking about the PR company that admitted it was trying to raise Metacritic scores for a company. The story is related here. Apparently this is a concern for people. True, the admission was a strange occurrence, which Penny Arcade points out. I find it strange that people are crying in outrage at this event, and today I’ll break down why.

This shouldn’t be a surprise: There are two ways to look at companies trying to improve public perception of their product: on the one hand, good public perception means more money, and on the other, you’ve worked hard on making something you think is of high enough quality to merit such perception. If I spent two years developing a game you can sure as hell bet that I’d want people to not tear it down in a matter of minutes on launch day (if not before).

It’s their job: PR firms are hired with the sole purpose of making games look good. Bad press is counter to the entire existence of PR firms, and so they are motivated to prevent said bad press and promote good press. It has also been noted (on the 360 Fancast) that many firms receive bonuses based on Metacritic scores. I’m not about to call that good business, but it is business, and if it was your bonus you’d ask for better scores.

They didn’t do anything wrong: What I mean is that the companies neither threatened action against poor scores nor offered any incentive for good scores. All they did was ask for people to hold off on posting scores that consumers don’t connect with a “must buy” title. I’m actually toying with the idea that these guys should be praised for that. I admit that it isn’t how I’d like businesses to run, but at least they weren’t dicks about it. That being said, I do agree that if a company has any reservations about review scores they should hold back on sending out review copies of the game. I won’t think any less of companies for giving out retail copies of games on release day rather than getting the media machine going early for a possible fail weeks in advance.

We, the consumers, share the blame: Let’s face it, if people didn’t get so scared off by a 7, companies wouldn’t mind having them in reviews. I’ve stated my distaste for numerical reviews before, and this is part of the reason. Personally, I find a lot of games out there that I quite enjoy get as low as a 6.5. These games aren’t bad, nor are they broken. They simply appeal to my personal tastes more than others’. I find this is often the case with franchises that are based on super-heroes, or other niches like Tomb Raider. If more gamers invested a little less in numbers and a little more in their own judgement companies wouldn’t dread scores which reflect differences in taste.

Obviously, it bears noting that I remain unimpressed with the situation. I am of course playing devil’s advocate, but I think that needs to be done. I mean, is anyone really surprised that stuff like this goes on? I’m sure that the company didn’t really mean to let the cat out of the bag quite so blatantly, but at least they didn’t lie about it. Would I like to see the ethics of the industry as a whole polished a little, especially when it comes to the media? Of course. But, with all the nasty things which could have happened, I think this is pretty minor.