I would love it if you were to stop creating asinine lists for their own sake. I’m just going to start with then “10 Most Disappointing Games of 2008” gem you dropped on December 12th. Maybe we can branch out and discuss some others later on.
What really gets me about this latest list, Wired, is that six of the ten games on it are brand new IPs. Did you guys realize that when you were writing it? That you’ve gone out of your way to compile a list that nay-says new ideas? I’m sure you’ve gotten plenty of hate mail about that already though, so I won’t start.
What I want to look at here is the number of games you completely sidestepped that were truly disappointing. By that I mean games, and developers, that really didn’t accomplish anything with their new titles. Teams that played it safe and made exactly what we were expecting. Do you not find that disappointing? Or do you crave the predictability that populates all your “Ten Best” lists of games for 2008? Let’s have a look.
I noticed that both Gears of War 2 and Fable 2 made your top ten best 360 games of ’08. Really? Two of the most derivative games released this year and that’s your best? That’s not to say that Epic didn’t get it right the first time around, and that the Gears formula isn’t a solid one; but that’s all it is: a formula. We all knew, going in, what was going to happen, that there would be no end of locust, no end of the manly quips from Marcus and co. and that there would be no real ending to the game because it was the second chapter in a trilogy. There was maybe, maybe, one fresh moment in that whole game, and it wasn’t even playable.
And Fable 2? It’s another case of the money-safe copy-paste business doctrine. You skewer games like Dead Space and Mirror’s Edge for not ascending the golden peaks of your overly-imaginative expectations, but when a game reproduces itself, seemingly asexually, and slaps a “2” on the end of its name you call it a top game of the year. What?
If you’re going to take the time to list this stuff, negative things like disappointing games, why not call out some developers that have either been ignoring their fanbase, or that have burrowed so far into their niche that can no longer remember what an original game looks like?
I think I’ll try my hand at this thing. This is what I think a “Disappointing games of 2008” list looks like:
Rock Band 2: I love you, Harmonix, but this glorified track pack, released just in time to defer a few sales away from Guitar Hero World Tour, was never worth sixty dollars. Good job on the new peripherals though, I guess.
Guitar Hero World Tour: This game was a year behind the first Rock Band in almost every way. It’s as though Neversoft wasn’t allowed to play the competition’s game to get a good idea of how to copy it. They just imagined what the game was like based off of what all their friends who were playing it said about it. They got it so wrong Harmonix actually got away with RB2, because it least it wasn’t a step backwards.
Call of Duty: World at War: I find it unbelievable that no major publication has called this game out. This premise, this gameplay, this entire franchise, was old news in 2006. We’re almost into 2009 and Activision has actually gone back in time to deliver us more WW2 games we never wanted. This, like Guitar Hero (which Activision also owns), has taken a giant step backwards from its last iteration. Everything about this game is disappointing, because it’s just too predictable and so, so safe from a development standpoint. It’s got low cost because it recycles most of its resources from Call of Duty 4, no thought needed to be put into the story, because we all know how WW2 ends (especially when it’s told from the Allied side), and finally, the game has a built in consumer base. Everyone who only buys one shooter game a year is just going to buy the new version of the one they bought last year. Congratulations Activision, you’ve successfully tricked your customers. Again.
Sonic Unleashed: This game wasn’t disappointing for the reasons you’d think. It wasn’t because being a were-hog was dumb. It wasn’t because Sega almost had it this time. It was just because it got made in the first place. It’s amazing that Sonic keeps coming back for more punishment. It’s clear that gamers don’t want him anymore. Not the way Sega seems intent on presenting him (too-cool-for-school 80’s inspired teenager with too many “anthropomorphic neon friends”[Ben Crawshaw]). And that really is what’s mind-boggling about the Sonic franchise. The fans have told Sega, in no uncertain terms, what they want from a Sonic game. They want to go fast, and to go fast in 2D. The fans are actually asking Sega to produce a very simple game and have promised to buy it up in droves if they ever do make it. But, for whatever reason, Sega has flat-out refused to do this. They’ve been refusing for almost ten years. If they want to starve themselves out, I think it’s time we let them. We don’t need to see Sonic get lashed any further.
Gears of War 2: I liked Gears 2, I did. But, again, it was so safe and cookie-cutter that it really has no place calling itself one of the best games of 2008. Maybe one of the best games of 2006 but, oh yeah, that’s when the original Gears was released. Whoops.
Horde mode was cool, but I’m willing to bet it took all of a week to produce, test and certify. It was a tack-on-addition that turned out to be a lot of fun in its simplicity, not an award-winning effort.
Fable 2: Same gameplay, same “expressions” with no real interactions, same Molyneux super-hype. Sorry friends, good vs. evil just doesn’t cut it as far as an “immersive, nuanced canvas”(Earnest Cavalli, Wired) goes. Morality has grey areas, Fable does not. The dog and the crumb trail were neat ideas, but between Dogmeat and Isaac Clarke’s onboard nav-computer I think you’ve been beat.
Posts
i posted this on a facebook link by acc, but hurrs my 2 cents.
ReplyDeletethe reason I think sonic unleashed failed is because "sonic 1, 2 ,3 > sonic unleashed" from a level design perspective. It seemed like it was trying to sell a re-imagining of the old sonic we loved as kids. I tried playing the demo, and it seems that they just hearding you to the next area with speed boosts into spikes you barely have time to ... Read Morenotice, instead of having huge multiple path maps like the old days.
as far as COD5, i agree, the story is fuckin terrible boring, the gameplay is so regurgitated from from COD4 it pisses me off in hindsight. If you play multiplayer shooters competitively though, of which there is a huge market, it wins by default, basically due to the 60 fps combine with good graphics. Competitive shooter players who desire an increased reaction time are gonna go for it every time. A developer pretty much labeled it the console's newest version "Counterstrike".
(copy pasted from my comments on your FB page)
ReplyDeleteI pretty much think that CoD5 is EXACTLY what is wrong with the industry at this point in time... shitty retreads that happen in a time that should honestly be banned from game development going forward... the quality gap between when Infinity Ward pulls off this "super-heavily-scripted-to-the-point-that-the-spawn-triggers-practically-glow-in-your-face" vs when Treyarch attempts the same is disgusting. Infinity Ward makes great games in spite of that formula/set of issues, because the attention to detail and polish are so strong... CoD4, while not perfect was fuckin awesome, and had some moments in the narrative that made me sit back and say "FINALLY!!" won't spoil it in case anyone hasn't finished it. I couldn't bring myself to play past hour 2 of CoD5. It's piss-poor and wreaks of cash grab... CoD4 was a step forward for the brand, CoD5 is at least 2 steps backwards, setting it back to CoD3 :-S
Gears does some things right, and some things I wish they would have done differently.
I don't mind the music games as a distraction or a party game... much like I feel the Wii is only good for that same purpose... that's a whole other discussion though (that we've argued before). I think the problem with the music games for me is that they all feel the same now... and everyone is buying them, so every dev/publisher is rushing out to get their "Me Too!" game out there on the store shelves... What people fail to remember is that this continued trend is what has hurt the industry in the past... quick cash grabs have existed for as long as any industry has been around, someone trying to make the most money with the least investment... the music games are exactly that right now... the Wii falls in the same category (I lied, I am going down this road and the accelerator is floored with a brick jammed on the pedal)... people see the system is selling in the bajillions and decide to make a game for the system... this usually comes down to fucking terrible PS2/Gamecube ports or forcing a game from the HD capable systems onto the Wii for full console agnostic status, or the newish trend of mini-game collections... I am convinced that most of the bean counters out there saying "Let's make one of those! They sold 10 million copies!" are too dumb to dress themselves in the morning. Instead of saying game X sold because it's made by nintendo (implies sales are coming from nintendo fanboys regardless of quality... the fact that Wii Music sold even 1 copy proves this theory), or because the game was developed with the Wii in mind from the outset and targeted at the actual user base (yes, Boom Blox is pretty sweet for what it is), most of these companies would likely rethink their plans of building tons of games for the Wii... Yes I know there is still a chance to make some profit... if it only costs a company say $500,000 to $1 million to port a game to Wii, and they can sell even 100,000 copies at $15 profit per copy sold, they are slightly ahead of the game. The problem becomes that like your write up suggests, people eventually wise up to the fact that these titles are in fact shit... hence the garbage... sorry "bargain" bins at Walmart for $18.88 being made up almost exclusively of Wii titles and the shitty music games coming out lately...
When enough people wise up, suddenly the word of mouth train gets moving and now everyone stops buying brand X. Back in the early 2000's this brand was EA... Now it's becoming Activision... and Ubisoft have really pumped out some ubertrash lately, like their entire DS "My Coach" line up... disgusting.
My issue is that while people seem to believe that the Wii is doing good for the industry, it's actually doing more harm. The system has proven to be a dumping point for some of the worst shovelware ever seen (yes even worse than the old Atari systems and some of the shit that appeared on PS1 before Sony smartened up). So, people believe that the Wii is introducing more people to gaming... but is it? Or is it introducing them to Wii Sports and some of the worst shit our industry has produced since it's inception? My thinking is that at this pace, the industry may be spending the later part of this console generation and the start of the next trying to repair the damage done to it's reputation at the hands of the Wii...
just my two cents... (and yes this rant was all over the place and possibly off topic for the most part... but my rage for the state the industry is currently in and where it appears to be headed is coming to a boiling point...)
b
Where is your rant coming from, Mr. Buttons? :)
ReplyDeleteI'll applaud any developer who takes a chance and puts game play before everything else.
But...
Maybe it has nothing to do with a number at the end of the game title. Or lack of number. Maybe IP is irrelevant.
Maybe Mirror's Edge was just... dull. And maybe Fable 2 was... fun.
Shoot, Wired's comment all-but-says they wanted to like it, that they're hooked on the IP, and that they can't wait for a more polished future version. But it had problems which kept them from liking it. And... that disappointed them. Makes sense to me.
Maybe every game doesn't need to transcend boundaries. Or become art. Maybe it just needs to be what the fans want: fun to play.
And Fable 2 was fun to play. Kind of like the first... but more polished. And particularly better at story (which may not be saying much). I beat it and felt compelled to start it up again. I put it aside to play Fallout 3 and the Witcher EE but came back to it because I missed it.
Loved your rant, of course, just a little confused. Not sure which titles would make your best list but Fable 2 definitely deserves its spot on any list of the year's best.
It's not that I believe all games need to transcend boundaries, it's simply that I don't think it's right to laud games that repeat themselves, if only for a bit more polish, as we see in something like Gears 2 or Fable 2.
ReplyDeleteI think games that present new ideas, and new gameplay, even if they don't entirely succeed (Mirror's Edge), deserve to be praised, rather than chastised for not being perfect. They belong on a "most innovative" list, not a "most disappointing" list.
I would definitely agree with that. I guess I just feel like... when there isn't a lot of innovation or artistic gaming out, you have to go with what's fun. There weren't a lot of great games released in 2008. Maybe a dozen? Maybe a few more? So it's kind of hard to make a top 10 where you exclusively reward the tiny subset of the innovators from that list.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm glad Braid did so well, even if, in a way, it was championed a little too dramatically. :) But I can overlook that because that was a very well done game that focused on all the right things.