Ask any hardcore gamer what they think about the games industry's tendency to rehash and follow the latest trends with no thought to striking out, and you'll likely find that most of them will be against such an idea. A vast majority of them will demand that we have too many Halo clones, too much exploitation of the cover system, and too many sequels.
However, when I line that viewpoint up with a number of the most common demands and complaints concerning the latest game releases, something isn't matching up properly. On the one hand, there is a crying out for new ideas and videogames that aren't afraid to buck trends. On the other, I see a mindset that only seems to encourage a gray sludge of indiscernible titles that might as well be conglomerated into Gears of Halozone: Guns of the Bio Fantasy XIII.
We accuse the games industry of lacking inspiration, but are we too so uninspired and imaginative that we cannot be pleased with new things ourselves? Are we part of the problem?
The trouble with gamers is that they are like anybody else, and we as a species tend to fear change. Just look at Resident Evil 5 and Killzone 2. Two games that, as far as I'm concerned, do very little wrong with their respective input and control schemes. However, many have complained about the "broken controls" for both of these titles, even though both games work perfectly -- but very differently. Capcom wanted a deliberately restricted inventory and method of combat in order to raise tension. Guerrilla wanted a lagging input in order to create the illusion of weight and produce a more methodical pace. As a means to an end, both Resident Evil 5 and Killzone 2 worked perfectly. They became exactly what the developers wanted, and that is commendable.
However, most of the complaints revolving around these two games have been focused on the controls. Of course, just because something is new, that doesn't mean it's automatically good. One cannot simply ignore that RE5 and KZ2 simply won't meet the personal preferences of some. However, what are the alternatives? A game that basically controls like Gears of War and a game that basically flows like Halo, respectively. That is ostensibly what the complainants want from these games. Just another pair of titles that fall into comfortable trends.
Neither RE5 or KZ2 are "broken." They both work perfectly fine. They require patience and practice, certainly, and that's where I think a lot of gamers are getting hung up. They want instantly intuitive experiences, but the only way for a game to be intuitive is for it to become standardized. A game that bucks trends ought to take some getting used to. That's the way unique things work. However, if you turn Resident Evil 5 into Gears of War, you can bet your life that complaints would quickly arise claiming Capcom was just ripping off other games and didn't try to be unique. It's a no-win situation.
Sticking with Killzone 2, one early complaint arose among gamers when Guerrilla confirmed that there would be no co-op in the game. Co-op is enjoying something of a revival recently, mainly thanks to the dominance of online gaming, and a great many titles have included the option, some of them even making it the central point. However, when Guerrilla chose to eschew Killzone 2 in favor of a strictly single-player campaign, people bitched. A few said they wouldn't be buying the game without co-op. Many expected it to be there, as if it were a required feature.
Quite why we need every action game to feature co-op when there are already plenty of great co-op experiences to choose from, I do not know, but this is a fine example of what I'm driving at when I ask if we're helping to over-standardize the industry. Calls for co-op in every FPS or action game that comes out serves only to devalue the truly great co-op experiences, to help them get lost in the shuffle as every developer crams in some token two-player modes. What should be an inspired and surprising extra feature is now an expected requirement for a great many people, and that serves only to get in the way of unique experiences, not to mention stretch already thin resources as developers force in extra features just to keep demanding gamers happy.
Let's take another example and look at BioShock. In 2007, 2K Boston created a fantastic single-player FPS that resonated with a great many people and provided one of the most enjoyable story-driven videogames to have been released in recent years. However, despite providing a fantastic single-player experience, there were still complaints that the game needed multiplayer in order to be worth their time. In fact, it seems almost a given that multiplayer will be a part of BioShock 2, even though we already have Halo 3, and Killzone 2, and Gears of War, and Call of Duty, and Unreal, Quake, Far Cry, even a crappy and forced bunch of online modes in F.E.A.R 2. Just game after game with a token frag fest thrown in.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think that "innovation" is particularly important, at least not when it comes at the expense of fun. What matters is that you do something and do it well, whether it's new or not. However, we as gamers thirst for fresh ideas, and love to see some inspiration in a game, while at the same time we have come to expect things that should never really matter so long as the game is good. Co-op, multiplayer modes and instantly familiar control schemes have become obligatory, and woe betide any high profile game that does not fit into a neatly shaped pigeon hole.
There is no real solution to this issue. As I already stated, it's human nature to shy away from things we're not used to, and to criticize anything that doesn't have familiar and comfortable features. However, the next time you complain that something doesn't have co-op, or that there's no token "capture the flag" mode, or that you have to get used to the controls, bear in mind that this industry is already too afraid to break from tradition. Let's not make it even scarier.
Contest:
5:00 PM on 03.17.2009
| 
After all, we aren't designers. We are consumers.
It's up to the people who actually MAKE the games to sway public opinion. You can't wait for the public to come up with something new. We have to be fed it.
Has always been that way. Always will be...
Sure, none of those games are very innovative, but all received (more or less) critical praise from the gaming press. Innovation is great, but there are other aspects to quality.
While I think we can definitely blame proper, hardcore gamers too, I think a lot of the blame belongs to the general public.
I don't think you read the article properly. Neither Killzone 2 nor RE5 tried to do anything strikingly new, but part of the problem is that a lot of gamers are expecting certain things to come "as standard", even if those things aren't necessarily needed or wanted. And when they don't get those things, they whine and complain and blame the game for not doing things it didn't want to do.
As for co-op, I agree. Co-op is fun, but it shouldn't be a "required feature" in "FPSs these days," unless you don't have a problem with games sucking ass. Play your average obviously-meant-for-co-op FPS on single player. Doesn't it suck? Here's a hint: it's not your problem, it's the game. If you need a friend to enjoy a supposedly single player game, it isn't very good.
But as someone who complained a lot about RE5 controls, I can tell you that my complaints are not out of a desire for comfort, nor did I want that game to copy Gears of War controls.
I think one can have a legitimate opinion or criticism of a game if they explain their point of view logically. It doesn't mean that all people who disagree with aspects of a game just want sameness and what they are comfortable with.
I love new ideas in games, and I can also appreciate a game that brings nothing new to the table but is executed well.
A gamer may not always be right. But let's not assume that developers are always right either.
Damn Capcom, can Chris and Sheva get a dash move or something? Maybe a roll move? I still like RE5 a lot, but the control system still baffles me a bit.
UGH! Tension and atmosphere arent excuses for outdated inefficient controls! See: Silent Hill!
Me, I'm the kinda guy who loves weird, rare, and unloved games- Chulip, for example. I do buy the occasional big-budget title (Rock Band 2, Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy), but those are few and far in between. Part of the reason a lot of more unique titles don't do well is advertising, or lack thereof- a lot of people on this site knew about Mirror's Edge, but to Joe Gamer, the name meant nothing. And those are the BIG weird games. Katamari Damacy would have been doomed if it hadn't received so much word-of-mouth advertising, much of it based around trying to describe the concept. It's up to us, the actual 'hardcore' gamers, to inform others about all the weird and wonderful games they're missing out on.
There are games out there that have achieved this balance of old/new and they are great. Games like Half Life 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Devil May Cry 3, heck I'll even throw Dead Space in for good measure.
The problem here Jim isnt that some people want just nothing but sequels. Its just that gamers acknowledge that there are some aspects towards games that simply cant be improved upon any further, and avoiding these high points simply for the sake of saying "we're doing this differently so we are innovative and fresh" is stupid, frustrating, and annoying. It's like replacing hamburger buns with chunks of broccoli. Is bread constantly used all the time? Yes. Is replacing it a smart or innovate idea? No, its stupid.
That kind of crap is part of the problem, and, while no one expects you to come out and say "yeah, I kind of shun away from games that don't fall into my cookie cutters" it would be nice if you at least entertained the thought. I do.
And to the people who still make the control complaint: I made a comparison between this and Chess (as well as some other games), if you don't like the way the pieces have to move, don't play chess. Go back to Halo.
But I also think this is the reason why Bioshock 2 is sort of turning out to be a bit of a cluster so far. It has nothing to copy. I'm really hoping I turn out to be proven wrong, since the whole Big Daddy thing seems like it might suck. I vastly preferred being a hard boiled sleuth fighting Russians in Rapture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, the reactions to the game (gathered from the articles, their comments sections and personal messages), fall into three categories.
Of course there is the expected response of the typical gamers whose desire for zombies whenever they see a cemetery is apparently insatiable. They tended to describe The Graveyard as "boring". Of course.
A little bit up the ladder of human civilisation, we find the people who were turned on by the idea but turned off by the actual experience. They were "disappointed". From what we can see, this was either caused by a failure on our part to maximize the qualities of the game or by certain expectations coming from the player.
Despite the fact that games are supposed to be interactive, many gamers still seem to be incredibly passive when it comes to the meaning of their entertainment. They expect to be spoonfed and don't seem to have any experience with literature, modern theater or fine art (or even art films) which require active participation, not just of thumbs and index fingers but also of heart and brain.
A final type of response was the simply "delighted" one. These people really enjoyed the game. And/or they were happy to see the experimentation that we're doing with the medium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody agrees with that?
in summary, theres nothing wrong with resident evil 5, theres just something wrong with you.
For the most part, yes. It's not everyone, but it's the mass majority of gamers out there.
Are we part of the problem?
Absolutely. Look at the history of how people have f'd up MMOs post-release and you'll see exactly what's happening with console gaming now.
Are you guys friggin' serious?
Personally, I don't think the videogame industry is becoming over-standardized. We would have to see the steady decrease of these niche IP's for that to be true. I think the opposite is happening, but we are too blinded by the adverts and propaganda that "SoNinSoft" drops for Gears of Halozone: Guns of the Bio Fantasy XIII.
Killzone 2, in my opinion, suffers from the latter. People complain because they don't like they way the game controls (myself included). That's not "fear of change", that's "I don't like the way your fu**in' game feels", and there's a big difference. Guerrilla made the decision to go away from certain standards that FPS players have come to expect, and in doing so, took a chance. Their control system was unproven and untested, and when [many] people got their hands on it, they didn't like it. So okay, "Hooray" for trying something new, but "Boo" for executing it poorly. Is that in any way *our* fault? No. You don't have to give me Call of Duty, but I do expect a game that I *like* to play if you want my sixty bucks.
I don't think it has anything to do with being closed-minded or afraid of change, I think it has to do with gamers' current opinion of what works best in any given application, regardless of "trend" or "frequency of use". For example, Dead Space showed that you can aim AND walk and still do "tension" just fine. Yet here comes Capcom well after the fact, and they've decided to continue restricting the player's movement in RE5... and people don't get it. The envelope's already been pushed *for* them (albeit a very minor, natural design progression), yet they still refuse to adapt. Is that the gamer's fault for wanting more? Or Capcom's fault for... wait for it... being afraid of change?
LINK
It's all about financial risk - big budgets kill creativity in games. The more stakeholders there are in a game, the more watered down the design will get.
The solution of course is to look to the gems that come out of indie games. The high risk means you are going to see a lot of things you don't want to play, but when the risks pay off we will see some amazing stuff.
And about people spending $60 on games... I don't. I always wait until the price goes down somewhat or I can find it used (Unless I'm given a gift certificate). That's too much cash to spend on a game that I may or may not like. It's rare that I run out and buy a new game. When I do it's something I know I would like (MadWorld for instance. I know I would like resident evil 5 but, it's $10 more. If I wait long enough, I can find it cheap on Amazon) I remember a time in my life when I would spend $50 on a game, and get it home, only to find out I basically got ripped off(thank god in the early days Babagges took opened games as a return on another new one). I'm very jaded when it comes to buying games, because I know what it's like to be excited about a new game. I spend the loot, and as soon as I pop it in my system, I'm disappointed in everything from the graphics to the crappy gameplay.
That's one of the reasons I come here. Because I get damn good reviews that seem to not be influenced by Sony or MS owning them.
I get HONEST reviews, and real life feedback from gamers.
I wouldn't call standing to shoot inefficient or outdated, it is merely another form of control.
Also, couldn't agree more Mr.Sterling.
I perfectly understood it, thanks. The fact that people don't like change is exactly why Capcom got away with Resident Evil 5 being merely Resident Evil 4 set in Africa with a few new changes. It's exactly why Epic got away with Gears of War 2 just being Gears of War 1.5 with a few new areas, couple new guns, and some new shades of gray and brown. It's exactly why High Voltage Software can make an utterly generic and derivative game like The Conduit, yet it's treated like it's already the 2009 Wii GotY. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Judging by the excitement and hype for RE5 around here, all I can say is that y'all dug your own grave.
You've played The Conduit already? How'd you get your hands on it? Don't like its generic and derivative gameplay, pass it on. Then we could be the two most fantastically awesome and coolest people ever, since we've played a game that not even reviewers got a taste of. Despite how generic and derivative it is. Because you said it is. Way before release date too. Won't pass it on, you say? Then I guess I'll have to invent a way to dig myself through the earth's core, cuz I'm totally hyped and excited for that game, which I highly regard as a great potential for game of the year 2009.