#oneaday Day 641: In Which I Berate the Games Industry for Being Fickle

Oh dear, everyone. Do make your mind up. About everything. And stick to what you believe.

Just a few months ago, roughly halfway between Black Ops coming out and the Battlefield 3/Modern Warfare 3 combo being announced, everyone had decided for the umpteenth time that they were, in fact, sick of games involving Soldiers With Guns. Originality was dying, we regularly heard, and commercialism was diluting the creativity of gaming down into a series of lowest-common denominator products designed purely to cater to the largest possible audience — seemingly, the beer-chugging dudebro. (Yes, I know some ladies play Call of Duty, too. But like it or not, gaming is still an overwhelmingly male-dominated pastime.)

Fast forward until now and suddenly everyone is happily spaffing in the faces of Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 with looks of rapturous ecstasy on their faces. I’m sure they will both turn out to be competent games with pleasingly spectacular visuals, but nothing has changed — they’re still games set in war-torn cities featuring Soldiers With Guns. I still have precisely zero interest in them, so what has caused people to suddenly decide that actually, no, we don’t have quite enough games featuring Soldiers With Guns in them?

I’m not objecting to the fact that these games exist on anything other than a personal level — I’m quite aware that there are plenty of people out there who play, enjoy and even love them. The thing that is bugging me is the fickleness on display by the industry and the public. Popular opinion seems to ping-pong from one extreme to another — “I hate this!” to “This is the best thing ever!” overnight. And, seemingly, it’s taboo to speak out and say “Hang on a minute…” — largely because in these days of publisher dominance over review scores, we all know what the consequences of rating something slightly below what everyone else rates it is. You get a Cliffy B (or equivalent) ranting and raving and crying that his product has been treated unfairly.

I have played a bit of Modern Warfare 3. It was fun-ish. It didn’t make me want to rush out and buy it. I was playing the co-op Survival mode. We played, we shot men and dogs, we survived. It was nothing I hadn’t done before in many other shooters, and in many cases in much more fun situations. Killing Floor, for example, is very similar to Modern Warfare 3‘s Survival mode but is much more fun owing to its variety of enemies and settings that go beyond war-torn towns.

I have not, on the other hand, played Battlefield 3. My totally uninformed position gives me a sneaking suspicion that things might take on a similar turn there. While the FrostBite 2 engine is undoubtedly pretty and gorgeous and capable of lovely feats of graphical marvellousness, as we regularly heard in the early days of the CD-ROM revolution, graphics do not make a good game. Battlefield 3 is, as far as I can make out, also not doing anything hugely revolutionary that hasn’t been done elsewhere before. Military shooters are a dime-a-dozen, and military shooters with vehicles have been done before, too — and on larger-scale maps by titles such as ArmA.

I don’t dislike the genre per se — to sound like a Daily Mail reader desperately trying to prove he’s not a racist for a moment, some of my favourite experiences with past games have been in the shooter genre. Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, No-One Lives Forever, SiN, TimeSplitters — all are examples of an overcrowded genre, but all, too, are examples of games which go a step beyond just being a cookie-cutter game involving Soldiers With Guns.

And yet two almost identical-looking games featuring Soldiers With Guns are tipped to be the biggest-selling titles of the year, while other games fall by the wayside. Where’s the justice?

Live and let live, I guess. So long as there are people online for me to play Dungeon Defenders with — and there seem to be plenty at the moment, thankfully — I’ll happily leave the Soldiers With Guns fans to their business and get on with mine. But I still wish that for once, when everyone finally tires of Battlefield 3 and Modern Warfare 3 and the inevitable sequels to both get announced halfway through next year, people will actually stick to their guns (no pun intended) for once and say “No! Look, we’ve had enough. Do something different, for fuck’s sake.”

I don’t see it happening, however. Still, as I say, so long as the more creative underbelly of the industry continues to thrive as it does, I’ll happily go on supporting the games that no-one else is playing. It’s a much more exclusive club, and one that’s a pleasure to be a part of.

#oneaday, Day 22: Make Love, Not Hate

On the Internet, opinions exist in a binary state for many people. There is your opinion (1), and there is everyone else’s opinion (0). Sometimes other people’s opinions coincide with your own, meaning they can join you in the happy 1 gang, while the 0-toting losers get to stand over there being Wrong.

It’s strange, though, really, isn’t it? People develop such strong feelings about particular issues, and these opinions spread virally very quickly via all forms of the media. I remember reading about this in A-level Sociology and forget all the names and dates of studies concerned, but since this isn’t an essay I’m not going to go and look them up. What I do know is that nowadays, such opinions spread far quicker than they have ever done before thanks to the immediacy of online social interactions, meaning that in some cases people may end up feeling that they should change their opinions on things in order to remain somehow “credible”.

‘Twas ever thus, of course, with the school bullies always listening to the most badass music out there whilst the flute-playing pansies amongst us voluntarily listened to—or even played—classical music. (Guess which of the two categories I was in, though I didn’t play the flute. Flutes are for girls.) One group tended to kick the shit out of the other on a fairly regular basis, and it was usually a pretty one-sided battle.

You shouldn’t start actively hating something just because other people say so, though. You should take pride in your tastes, however idiosyncratic or separate from the supposed “norm” they are.

Let’s take a few examples of Things I Like That Should Be Embarrassing To Admit But Really Aren’t, Honestly, No, Stop Looking At Me Like That And Please Don’t Unsubscribe, Think Any Less Of Me Or Be Any Less Likely To Do Nice Things For Me (Like Buy Me Cake, Give Me A Big Wet Snog Or Make Me A Delicious Roast Dinner) Should The Opportunity Come Up.

Okay. I can do this.

(takes deep breath)

I like Robbie Williams. I also enjoy the comedy of Michael McIntyre, the radio show of Chris Moyles, the bubblegum pop music of MIKA and think Ke$ha’s album is a work of quirky genius that I believe I have described as “sounding like Kelly Clarkson being forcibly inserted into a NES” on several occasions. I voluntarily bought both Dead or Alive Xtreme games and played them a lot, and not just for the bazongas involved, I enjoyed the dumbass illogical “dating sim” mechanics that were in there too. I follow Katy Perry on Twitter and find her music cheerfully uplifting. And I own two Spice Girls CDs.

Tastes change over time, of course, but who’s to say that I’m “wrong” for liking any of those things just because the popular opinion is to hate them and deride those who enjoy them? I’m just as guilty as anyone else, of course; I find myself hating shows such as The X-Factor, Strictly Come Dancing and the like irrationally and automatically. I loathe Call of Duty. I would rather gouge my own eyes out than watch anything involving Piers Morgan (I think we can all agree on that one, surely).

The world would undoubtedly be a nicer place where everyone could feel more confident in themselves if our personal preferences stopped being scrutinised so much, and assumptions made based on those preferences. Take the recent announcement of Final Fantasy XIII-2, for example, a sequel to one of the most controversial Final Fantasy games there has ever been. Not because of the content, but because of the gameplay, which wasn’t to everyone’s liking. There are people out there who assume that because Final Fantasy XIII wasn’t to their taste, XIII-2 is going to be shit as well. Justifications range from “Square have lost their way” (well, perhaps, but can’t they pick it up again?) to “it’s the same team, of course it’s going to be rubbish” (because everyone is always universally good or universally bad?) and it’s nonsense. Nonsense I tell you!

Basically, do your blood pressure a bit of good and start concentrating on the things you like a bit more. Tell people how much you like them, by all means. But let’s all make a pact to stop making people feel bad about things that you, personally, “hate”.

Unless it’s terrorism, AIDS or Piers Morgan. You can hate those as much as you like.

#oneaday, Day 300!

Other people may have made it to this milestone before me, but here I am: day 300. I am going to resist any “This Is Sparta”-type quotes here, largely because I haven’t seen 300 and also because that whole meme is kind of played out, really.

So, here we are. This day arrived with little in the way of fanfare and, in fact, a bunch of tweets and posts ranting about things which happened to other people. But I think today of all days I’ve earned the right to be a bit selfish, to say things about me. So that’s what I’m going to do.

This is very much the home stretch now, of course, with just 65 days remaining until I’ve completed a full year of non-stop blogging. Well, not non-stop, but daily. You know what I mean.

It’s been one hell of a journey, as those who have been following from the start (and prior to that) will be able to attest. And it’s not, naturally, the course I would have chosen this year to take had I the opportunity to decide my own destiny on a moment-to-moment basis. But, unfortunately, sometimes the consequences of the things you do and the choices you make aren’t immediately apparent, and it’s not until months or years later that you realise you were heading down one road when you thought you were heading down another. A big step in life’s journey is accepting that sometimes things don’t go the way you expect them to, and thus you will have to learn to deal with them, for better or worse. Most of the time, you do have choices, although they might not be clear at the time. And, decisions to murder, rape and pillage notwithstanding, there are no “wrong” choices per se, so long as you’re just willing to deal with the knock-on effects that your choices have.

Back on January 19 of this year, I made the decision to take on the #oneaday challenge. It’s a decision I’m glad I took, as it’s a habitual process now; it’s something I enjoy doing every day and if nothing else, it’ll provide an interesting record of a particularly difficult year in my life. It got me to thinking, though; does every year contain as many “events” as this one has? In my 29-and-a-bit years on this planet, is every year so filled with things that are “interesting” and affecting? Quite possibly; it’s just that most of the time, things happen, they pass by and you forget about them. And making a note of them may make some things seem bigger than they actually are. But on the flip-side, looking back at things that happened with the benefit of hindsight can make you feel better about them.

I’m not saying this is how I’d have chosen 2010 to go for myself. If I had completely free choice, I’d have won the lottery, bought an exciting car, be living in a nice (but not excessive house) with at least one cat and maybe be doing a bit of freelancing. Or possibly I might have invented faster-than-light travel and gone into space. I couldn’t say. I didn’t have completely free choice, sadly.

But here I am, 300 days later, and I’m at a stage where I can look back in a contemplative manner, stroke my beard and go “Hmm”. This is a better state to be in than I have been in the past. So here’s hoping that over the next 65 days that things only continue to get better.

And to all of you who have been following this blog, however long you’ve been reading it for, thanks for coming along for the ride. Your thoughts, comments and support have been very much appreciated. Here’s to that final push.

#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.