#oneaday Day 624: Revisionist gaming history

A few weeks back, someone started an argument with me about Final Fantasy VIII. They asserted that everyone had always hated Final Fantasy VIII, and that I was somehow wrong for remembering that my friends and I were super-hyped for it, enjoyed it immensely when it came out, and that reviews of the time were also very kind to it. Review scores aren't the be-all and end-all, of course, but they do act as a pretty good barometer of roughly how positive the critical reception for a given title was.

I bowed out of the conversation early on because it was pretty clear from the outset that the person attempting to start this argument was not going to listen to any viewpoint other than their own, even when it was coming from someone who lived through the experience of that game coming out, and they just wanted to hate on something that had, in recent years, become fashionable to bash.

Now, I'm not going to attempt to convince you one way or the other about Final Fantasy VIII at this point. It's one of those games that you either "get" or you don't, and I don't blame anyone who doesn't "get" it. But to extend "I don't get this" out to "everyone everywhere always hated this" is ridiculous. It's absolute revisionist history, and it's something that drives me absolutely bonkers about online discourse over video games these days.

It happens with more recent games, too. Take Mario Kart World, a game which does some really interesting things with the Mario Kart formula, and one which is designed with so much polish that I really can't take anyone who says it is a "bad" game seriously. And yet to some folks it is "the worst Mario Kart there has ever been" and, again, "everyone hated it". No, no they did not.

Or another example: I saw a post just this evening that implied that The Legend of Zelda: Echoes of Wisdom was a bad game, primarily due to the fact that none of the original team who worked on the first ever The Legend of Zelda game (which is celebrating an anniversary milestone right now) worked on it. I take two issues with this: one, that everyone who worked on the original The Legend of Zelda is probably either an old man or dead at this point, and thus should be left to get on with their life in peace, and two, Echoes of Wisdom wasn't a bad game! Not even a little bit!

EDIT: The account in question has since clarified that they meant it was "sad" that Echoes of Wisdom was the first game without any of the original team that was involved, not that they thought it was a "sad" game due to it not being any good. I have left the preceding paragraph as-is to take ownership of my own misunderstanding — and to acknowledge that I wasn't alone in it, hence the account's clarification of what they said.

And don't even get me started on Final Fantasy XIII.

There is one thing that all these examples have in common, though, and that is the fact that all of them do something different to what is expected as "the norm" in their respective series. For Final Fantasy VIII and XIII, this should be no surprise to anyone who has ever paid attention to the series and its core philosophy of "if it's not new, it's not Final Fantasy" (as I wrote about nearly ten years ago right here), but, to this day, people are confused by the fact that Final Fantasy VIII and XIII are very unconventional in a lot of ways. (Interestingly, very few people seem to have a problem with Final Fantasy XII these days, despite, in many ways, it being a way more significant disruption from the series "usual format" than many other entries.)

For Mario Kart World and Echoes of Wisdom, those two games were always in a bit of a no-win situation. Do something the same as previous games and they would be regarded as pointless and unambitious. Do something a bit different, as they both did, and people complain that they're not like all the other games in the series! Seriously daft.

The most annoying thing about this constant revisionist history is that it makes it impossible to have sensible discussions about these games. Pretty much as soon as it became clear someone was spoiling for a fight over having the "correct" opinion about Final Fantasy VIII (and what "everybody" thought of it, apparently), the entire thread derailed and became impossible to have a reasonable discussion in. Anyone who attempted to highlight the things that they, in fact, liked about it was shouted down, and it just became pointless to even try. I've seen enough threads like that in my time to know that it really wasn't worth trying in the first place, which is why I bowed out of it early.

When it comes to Final Fantasy VIII, I'll just leave you with one little story from my past. In the period between Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy VIII coming out, our friendship group had a perpetually running joke with the local computer shop owner, in which literally every time we went in there (and we went in there a lot), we would ask him if he knew when Final Fantasy VIII was coming out, to which he would reply by mumbling something mostly incoherent about "stocks". This became such a notorious exchange among our friendship group that during our obsession with the Klik and Play games-making software, one of our number immortalised the discussion in his project Resident Evil EX, by incorporating a fully-voiced scene in which the protagonist, Agent Wesley Wilson, would walk into a computer store in the in-game mall, ask if the shopkeeper knew when Final Fantasy VIII was coming out, to which he would reply "asfhgblaskbkljblkl stocks".

That's how excited we were for Final Fantasy VIII to come out. And when it eventually did come out, I had people in my university room almost every night to come watch and see what would happen next.

So don't fuckin' tell me that "everyone always hated" something. Because, inevitably, it isn't true. In pretty much every instance like this, what the person saying that "everyone always hated" something means is "I didn't really like this" and "I'm unwilling to entertain the possibility that anyone else did".

Want to read my thoughts on various video games, visual novels and other popular culture things? Stop by MoeGamer.net, my site for all things fun where I am generally a lot more cheerful. And if you fancy watching some vids on classic games, drop by my YouTube channel.

If you want this nonsense in your inbox every day, please feel free to subscribe via email. Your email address won't be used for anything else.

#oneaday, Day 171: Cracking Down On Crackdown 2 Decracktors

Right, you. Yes, you. The one who's been saying nasty things about Crackdown 2. Or should I say, all of you who've been saying nasty things about Crackdown 2. I'm going to say why I think you're wrong. I respect your viewpoint, and I still love you, but you're wrong. Actually, no, that's harsh. You are, of course entitled to your own opinion. I just happen to disagree with most of the Internet, from the sound of things.

Here's the deal. Crackdown 2 is an open-world game, but Ruffian themselves have said that they want to distinguish the game's play style from games such as Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed 2 and the like. And it's true. RDR, AC2 and numerous others purport to be open-world games but actually end up having a rather tight, linear mission structure when it comes down to it. This isn't a bad thing; as everyone knows, linear games are more inclined to have stronger stories since it's a lot easier to script something when you know your player isn't going to run off somewhere completely random.

Crackdown 2 takes the complete opposite approach. Yes, there is a flimsy justification for the Agents' presence in the city. But it's not intended to be the primary purpose of the game. The primary purpose of the game is nothing more than having fun. Producer James Cope described the experience as being like "playtime at school, running around and shouting BRILLIANT!"—and if you approach the game in this manner, then yes, it's a hell of a lot of fun.

On top of this, there's the fact that it is a true example of an open-world game. The whole world is open from the outset. Agents can go anywhere and tackle objectives in any order. Sure, some places will be harder to access without appropriate levelling-up. But it is indeed possible to run off in any direction at the opening of the game and tackle things in any order desired. This is a good thing, particularly for a game built with co-op fun in mind. There's nothing worse than being stuck with co-op buddies and having to sit through cutscenes and lengthy conversations. When you're playing with other people, you want to be able to jump straight in. And in Crackdown 2 you can do that.

Then there's the criticism about the missions all being the same. Sure, the objectives are the same thing over and over again: activate three absorption units, defend a beacon, lather, rinse, repeat. But this means that anyone can jump into anyone else's game and not feel "left behind" or unclear about what they are supposed to do. What people complaining about this also don't mention is the fact that part of the challenge that is different each time is navigating the way to the beacon itself. It's normally hidden underground behind a selection of obstacles which require negotiating. Sometimes working out the best route is an environmental quasi-puzzle in itself.

And then the defense event which occurs while you wait for the beacon to detonate has a considerable amount of variation in the enemies which approach. Sometimes there'll be swarms of close-combat enemies. Sometimes there'll be a few ranged enemies. Sometimes there are massive enemies who take one hell of a beating. There's variety there. Sure, you're still defending a point against a swarm of enemies. But people do that all the time in Team Fortress 2, Gears of War and Halo and don't complain. So what's the problem here? Let's leave aside the fact that there are also races to complete on foot and in cars, Freak Breaches to close, orbs to collect, audio logs to find and, if you don't feel like doing any of those things, a limitless swarm of enemies on which to take out your aggression. There are also a wide selection of creative and fun Achievements to attempt and, let's not forget, a huge and detailed city to explore.

Now, onto the graphics. The one thing that is rapidly starting to grate about this generation of games consoles is the level of obsessiveness over the superficial aspects of games' presentation it has produced. It used to be that people could appreciate a game even if it had graphics that didn't look as "good" (and that's such a subjective term anyway) as titles perceived as "benchmarks". Now, it seems, if a game doesn't look as good as Assassin's Creed 2, it looks "crap". Crackdown 2 has a distinctive, clean visual style that is light on the detail but heavy on the draw distance. Yes, there are times when the frame rate drops a bit. But it does the important job for an open-world game set in a high-rise city; it has a sense of scale. Crackdown and its sequel are two of the only games I've ever played where I've felt vertigo—proof if proof were needed that the game is doing its job very ably in representing the size of the city and the Agents' seeming insignificance within it.

I think the thing that I'm objecting to most, though, is the assertion that the game is "bad". People are saying that they "hate" the game, that it's a "failure", that it "sucks". But it does what it was supposed to do, which is provide a solid, co-op friendly, bubblegum-pop experience that is fun. Nothing more than that. It's not trying to be high art. It's not trying to have a great narrative. It's not even trying to be hugely different from its predecessor; it's simply trying to do "the same, but more so". That does not make it a bad game. Remember Doom II? That was pretty good, right? But do you remember the fact that it only added one new weapon and a handful of new enemies? And yet people still liked it. How about the bajillion military first-person shooters out there? There's not a lot to distinguish them from each other in many cases. And yet people still play them in their millions without complaint. What about racing games? Arguably the biggest innovators in that genre recently were Split/Second and Blur, both of which suffered very disappointing sales figures. Many gamers prefer the comfortable familiarity of Forza 3 and equivalents, which still follow the same gameplay model that Gran Turismo set thirteen years ago. Yes, thirteen years.

The fact is, despite what I said in the introduction, I'm not saying that people who don't like Crackdown 2 are wrong. Quite the contrary, in fact. The game is not something which will appeal to everyone; what game is? The thing which has disappointed me about the critical reception to the game is the fact that the subjective "I don't like this" has become perceived as an objective "This is bad". The two statements are very different.

The only real way to be sure, of course, is to try the game for yourself. Take it in the spirit in which it is intended; it's not Dragon Age, it's not Red Dead Redemption, it's not Oblivion. It's Crackdown. It is its own thing. It wants to provide a shallow, entertaining experience that isn't intended to be taken the slightest bit seriously. And in that respect, it succeeds admirably. It's not an experience which will appeal to everyone. But that doesn't mean it should be branded as a bad game. It should be accepted on its own merits. I'd even argue that it shouldn't be compared to its predecessor.

So if you're one of the people who has read one of these reviews and thought "Oh… that's a shame", because you actually quite liked the idea of a city-sized playground in which to jump around and have fun? I'd encourage you to give it a chance. It's a vapid whore that just wants your love, and it doesn't mind if you cheat on it with cleverer games.

So go on. Call her. You know you want to really.