Regular readers will know that I'm not really a big player of video games. I enjoy them and put some time in on the Switch or PlayStation most weeks, but I don't keep up with new releases, don't follow the culture, and probably couldn't pick between a picture of DOTA and League of Legends. I
grew up with Zelda and Mario and Tetris like most of my generation, but as I
hit adolescence, my interest tapered off, not because I wasn't interested in
Video Games, but Video Games became increasingly less interested in me.
Back in the day (read: My Day, you
ungrateful kids), titles like Commander Keen and Day of the Tentacle tried to
be fun and innovative; taking risks and trying new directions for the
still-emerging Video Game market. With the exceptions of Nintendo and Sega,
Video Game software wasn't a market that one could expect to make a great deal
of money in, people did it (partially) because they loved it. This view may
seem nostalgic in the extreme, but have a look at companies like Midway or Rare
back before they hit it big; I'll wager the "CEO" was living off
instant ramen and really cheap coffee until Mortal Kombat or Goldeneye hit the
shelves for the first time.
These days, Games are big business,
which is (typically) a good thing for the industry; developers get the funding
to put out some amazing titles and the boundaries are really being pushed as to
whether Games can be considered Art or 'read' as 'text' in the same manner as
Film and Television (in an academic sense, of course). However, success has
always bred imitation, and the Video Games industry is feeling this trend hard
at the moment. Take a good hard look at your favourite game and you'll probably
find that it "borrows heavily" (or steals directly) from another
popular game before it. The problem with this trend is not only the obvious
stagnation of experimentation within games development, but also half the games
you get to play seem exactly the same.
So, without further ado, here's a
shortlist of five common features of Video Games that have shown themselves to
be problematic, at least according to me in my grumpy and stagnant corner of the internet.
1. Time
Limits
As with most of the things on this
list, I'm not saying that Video Games need to do away with Time Limits
entirely, just that it proves to be an unnecessary crutch for poor
storytelling. Back in the misty, far-off days of Super Mario Brothers on the
Nintendo Entertainment System, there were no Continues, no Save Points and only
so many 1-UP Mushrooms, so the only reason not to take a painfully long time
agonising over every jump was the timer counting down from 300 in the corner of
the screen. The original The Prince Of Persia also made good use of this
mechanic, docking time from the Game Clock for each death. So it's not a big
conceit to admit that a timer on a game can ratchet up the tension and aid in
the suspension of disbelief.
However, when every second level (or
mission or whatever) throws a timer up on the screen and screams at me to get
out of the burning building (or away from the bomb or get to the hostage), the
sense of tension is replaced by a sense of irritation. I'm in a freaking
burning building, how is my natural intention to do anything but run for my
life? In a film or television programme, dramatic tension can be added with
music or other, less melodious, background noise; only in 24 and one
episode of M*A*S*H can one see a clock up on the screen to increase
tension. There are many films where a bomb is counting down to a climax, but it
is only in video games, where the player is directly linked to the narrative,
that a ticking clock is a common device to keep the protagonist under the pump.
If only this technique was not included in almost every game, it wouldn't be so
bothersome.
2. Boss
Fights
Back when games were made with a
resplendent 8 bits of graphics, the occasional fight against a fire-breathing
turtle was an important signpost of progression amongst dozens of same-looking
levels. What is interesting is that, in today's world of Quick Time Events and
complex interactive storytelling, at least one Boss Fight can be found in every
game. Certainly, a climatic and thematically appropriate battle against a
worthy opponent at the end of a game can be satisfactory, but not every game
can make this formula work. Think back to Red Faction for a moment, did the
boss there really add anything to the game? Shooters are particularly bad at
boss fights, a game that has primarily featured goons with a variety of guns
and body armour throughout has its tone shattered when the head Mafioso turns
up in a walking tank with jets and lasers.
As with my complaint against time
limits, it is not the concept of Boss Fights that I find disagreement with, the
Metal Gear Solid franchise has always made its Boss Fights engaging and story
driven. Instead, it is the seeming necessity of repeated Boss Fights in games
where they simply do not fit. Personally I think that because video games have
always had Boss Fights, that they continue to do so, gamers expect and accept
them as part of the gaming experience, regardless of their suitability in any
given game. Once again I point to cinema as a proof that conflict is not the
only climax that a story can utilise.
3.
Downloadable Content (DLC)
With increasing profits in the Games Industry comes an
increased drive to create successful titles and release them to the public.
When a highly anticipated game is pushed back due to unforseen circumstances,
the furore released is akin to that evoked by the Nuremberg trials. To combat
this, many developers leave parts of a game unfinished, making
"patches" or even whole levels and characters into little
downloadable packets so that people won't call them out for putting the game
out a few weeks late. In some ways this is a good thing; games are released in
reasonable time and overly long delays are avoided. However, is it just me, or
does this seem like a little bit of a cop out? If a game is not finished, why
is it being put into stores? It's not like a film is put into the cinema with
some of the post-production remaining to be done. Perhaps it is too much to
assume that the gaming public could be expected to wait patiently for the whole
game to be ready, but honestly, is it that much to ask? Think about it this
way, if you wait a little bit longer for a game, you could play it straight
away, no patch downloading, no wait to play the bonus missions, just the whole
game, in the box.
Of course, it is not merely a lack of
completion that causes DLC, there is the ever-present driving force of money to
consider. If someone is willing to pay $100 for a game, what are the chances
that the same person will pay a few dollars for an extra mission or a new
character to play? When a story is continued through extras like this, it
evokes in me the same feeling as the "Extended Universe" novels
associated with various Television and Film franchises. If someone is so
engaged with a text as to pursue every permeation of it, it always seems that
the makers of that programme/game/film are right there with an open till.
That's my real problem with DLC, I guess, it's a cheap cash-in and unabashedly
so; like "Collector's Edition" DVDs and fake Master Swords to hang on
the wall.
4. Chase
Sequences
When playing a game like GTA or Need
for Speed, one expects to chase another vehicle down a hazardous road a few
times, it's part of the experience of the game and an accepted part of game
play. When one is tasked with chasing someone down in a First-Person Shooter
however, something feels amiss. Much like Boss Fights and Time Limits, chases
have become a common element of most games from Platformers to Shooters. Once
again, the odd chase that works within the narrative of the game is fine, but
far too often a chase can be used to bridge an obvious gap. If travel needs to
take place to link up the various narrative strands of a game, there are more
options than a chase, if nothing particularly interesting is going to happen
during the journey from A to B, perhaps it doesn't need to be covered. Too
often the length of a game is padded out with unnecessary sequences that
distract from the story and the chase scene is one of the worst culprits.
5. Push
Start to Play
This may be a bit of a petty
complaint, but why is the Start Screen different from the Menu Screen? The time
and effort of programmers, designers and artists has been wasted on a screen
that is seen for seconds at most. What difference would it make to have a game
load up straight into the menu? In the worst cases, after pressing Start, more
time is spend loading before one can access the menu and actually start playing
the damn game. Admittedly, I'm not a programmer, and perhaps there is something
important about pressing Start that I'm missing, but it really seems like a
convention of games that is only still around because almost every game in
history has had it. I understand that sometimes a demo or cut scene is visible
before the menu appears, but again, is this really necessary? Also coming into
this category are the self-promotional ads that games start up with, Gamers
seem far more astute about production than one would expect, so many would know
exactly the origin of a new game. The fact that a handful of game creators are
becoming as well known as Film Directors (in the right circles) makes the
self-promotion seem a little unnecessary.
That's all for
today, hope you enjoyed the read.
