This episode deals with the inherent problem with Blogging about games and the problems within my own post.
Games are an interesting culture to speak about. Even in its simplest form, it engenders discussion and argument which websites such a Destructoid facilitates through both its intelligent community and blog feature. However, this is the internet, which engenders many problems with communication and understanding.
First off, communication. With the internet, it’s very rare that people actually know someone to a point in which they understand the intricacies of personal tone and meaning. The best example is the We Should Expect Better Articles. People look at me and say that my derogatory tone and singular accusation is too hard edged against people who work very hard at what they do. Maybe they are right. But what people commonly seem to associate with my posts is me screaming and beating my chest like a lunatic. In reality, if I were to speak with my own voice it would actually be quite depressed sounding and in a very matter of fact tone. Very rarely does any of my problems with gaming actually anger me (such exceptions being music games and social networking), but rather simply disappoints me. I feel that what I think are halfassed products getting paraded around at the expense of better titles as well as the fact that game design has been steadily going downhill since 2000 to be quite sad as a gamer.
Now about understanding. There are a lot of misconstrued opinions about my articles and I feel that I must explain myself for the sake of clarity.
The primary problem is my statements on stupidity. The word, stupidity, is merely a label I place over my feelings about developers. What I refer to as stupidity is in fact is a lack of knowledge coupled with an unwillingness to learn and a delusion that they do something well. A perfect example for this can be taken from my own family history. My father is a director of children’s cartoons. He’s directed The magic School Bus, Braceface and is currently working on one of if not the highest rated cartoon on the Disney Channel, Handy Manny. There are animators and board artist out there that he knows. They are terrible. They have awful composition, timing, they are even terrible at drawing. They work at a professional level, but lack the talent to do it even remotely well. But they think they’re the greatest thing since Walt Disney and when someone more talented calls them out and tries to help them improve, they are resistant to instruction and insulted that someone would even question their greatness. That is stupidity.
Through my family’s constant encounters with ‘stupidity’ and my own personal experiences throughout my life, I’ve come to recognize and classify human behaviour quite well. I can see when someone is being ‘stupid’ from a mile away. And if I’m incapable of succeeding anywhere else in my life, I can rest easy that I’m at least good at understanding human nature to a degree.
The next part of misunderstanding regarding my work deals with my preponderance towards zero tolerance. Well, yes, I have no tolerance towards something that can be done better quite easily. It shows a singular lack of effort and understanding of the profession you are in when you do something wrong. And my ultimate opinion is, if you can’t do something right, don’t do it at all. However, my concept of right is very different from what you may assume. I see ‘right’ as being neither perfect nor even good. Doing something right is an aspect which can be seen throughout your work. It insinuates itself into the character of the final product you turn in. Doing it right shows you have a fundamental understanding of the work that you are doing professionally. It can be boring, it can just be just not that great, But if you understand what your working on and actually understand how to implement it into a game in way that is significant and relevant to the player, then you have done it right. Look at Dead Space. Was it perfect? Far from it. But did it display a fairly competent understanding of horror, science fiction, space ship design, narrative progress and third person action adventure gameplay? Yes and it did it quite well.
Oh and for the record, when someone such as myself and others who have an admittedly limited experience with game development are able to point out blatant flaws in level, narrative and game design, there is something very wrong with the product you just released.
I also argue that games nowadays are awfully designed in comparison to products from 20-even 6 years ago. And my belief is that in this day of easy to use third party engines, normal mapping, advanced AI, real-time physics and photorealistic Graphics, if you can’t beat a game like Quake 2 (1997), Half Life (1999) or System Shock 2 (2000), what in god’s name are you doing? And what depresses me further is that none of these newer games make any effort to understand what made those games, with their limited technology, so great.
I don’t expect you to agree with me. In fact I hope you don’t as it allows discourse and debate to occur. What these articles are the accumulation of my personal opinions into a series of argumentative essays in order to raise questions about the nature of gaming. Hell I’m probably wrong concerning many aspects of my opinion, but it’s just how I feel as a gamer who’s been screwed over too many times to count. I also don’t think that I’m the smartest person on the planet, but I feel that I’m smart enough to point out something that’s simply inexcusable and voice my opinions.
EDIT - It was recently stated that I'm the 'glass half empty' type of guy. This statement is both true and false. I have no tolerance for bad ideas and stupid game design and will frequently call these games out for the stupidity they contain. But this doesn't mean I don't like or even love them. Some games are good, just despite some horrid design choices. Metal Gear Solid is one, Far Cry 2 is another. In fact the MGS series is my second favourite game series ever made. But there are some really awful design choices that someone should have taken notice of and fixed and there is no excuse for the stupidity displayed by not remedying the problem. However, I won't deny these games aren't fun to play or even great experiences. They just have serious problems that could have been fixed with a little basic reasoning applied.
|
"But what people commonly seem to associate with my posts is me screaming and beating my chest like a lunatic." word? who thinks that? <--not sarcasm on the internet
"They just have serious problems that could have been fixed with a little basic reasoning applied" There's the full half!
Apologies if I've seemed e-agressive over your stuff. You're certainly pointing out reasonable deficiency. I just think its worthwhile to challenge your angle for solutions.
It's an exaggeration and a lame attempt to be funny. I was basically saying that when taken out of context my stuff tends to sound very angry and brutish.
Tubatic, I wasn't really taken aback by your arguments, they are all legitimate. The point that you struck home with me was I was not being clear enough with what I say and my opinions got misconstrued as the inevitable result of my inability to express tone on the internet. This section of the article is me pointing out the problems in my own work and attempting to rectify it for the sake of clarity.
Oops messed up! I meant to say that The screaming and beating my chest thing was an exaggeration
All good Bugsport. I feel you. Its turkey to rock a blog sometimes.
I think that you're right to address the pitfalls of text, because the impression that I get from you here is that you're the sort of person who feels that his self-perceived lack of flaws gives him free reign to be harshly judgmental of others. There's nothing wrong with being critical, mind you, but your text gives me the impression that your own pursuit of perfection should be reflected in everything that you encounter, and that it's unacceptable if you find anything else in it.
I'm likely way off base, which is what I gather this piece is about, but that's how you come across here. If anything, me being completely wrong illustrates your point perfectly. :P
I'm definately flawed, that's for sure. Yes the point of this article is that Without proper tone and context, writing can easily be misconstrued. My stuff comes across as incredibly angry and hateful to anyone who doesn't know the tone I'm trying to convey. When in reality I'm basically saying this in a very mild, matter-of-fact, slightly depressed tone.
It's my own fault for not making my point/tone for the article clearer.
Nah dude, you're cool. In fact, seconds after I wrote that, I wondered whether or not it was going to sound as bitter and douche-baggish as it sounded to me when I read it back. :P
I get your point though, for sure, and you're right. Sometimes it can seem like someone is saying one thing, when if we had any idea of the tone behind what they were saying, it would paint it in a different light completely.
I think you need to take a deep breath, a glass of water, and read a few chapters of a good, calming book, say a mystery story.
One thing I'm going to say is that you say you have your definition of right. Everyone does. That's called an opinion, everyone has one, and none of them are stated to be facts. You once said in a previous post that games should be more open and focus on story. But what if the developer intended it to be a short little male power fantasy that's fun to play for an hour or two and great with friends? There must obviously be an audience for that, so who's to say that it is wrong to make the linear game or the music game everybody likes? Just like there's no real reason for there not to be MORE good thoughtful games. But it is just like when I switch from the History channel to Family Guy, I want to just enjoy myself. I don't need to burden myself with political plots and the importance of life and death. I just want to snap some necks sometimes.
Also, you talked about games like Metal Gear Solid, and that it has flaws that MUST be fixed. I see this as the "Standards" syndrome. Everyone has it. When a game (movie, book) is good, people are more likely to see the problems with it. This is because humans are programmed to look at things negatively. Sure, even the Metal Gear Solid fans are usually the first ones to lament about the Epicly Long Cutscense (ELC) or to see the ridiculosness of hiding two different kinds of sniper rifle up your ass cheeks, but if you asked them, they wouldn't change a thing about it. You've said that Metal Gear Solid has made "entirely stupid design choices before" and you have also said in this blog that "you don't want games to be perfect." But if MGS is one of your favorites, then it must be a revolution in game design. That's why it is lauded so, and to fix those simple "problems" would be to make the game in your mind "perfect." Sure a human shouldn't be able to take seven rockets to the face, even if he IS in a Mini-Nuclear launching device, but if Kojima made it so Liquid only took one rocket and that killed him right there, for the sake of "realism," then he probably would have made the game less spectacular.
Also, I have yet to hear you talk about Deus Ex's problems. You always seem to point to that as superior game design, but it has it's own share of problems, chief among them being the emphasis on stealth the game forces you to go through (The Invisible War had better combat and choice system, anyway).
Nothing has to be a perfect or a revolution in game design to be really really good. As much as the gameplay bothers me, it doesn't mean it's not fun and It clearly shows a level of research and understanding of close quarters combat and tactical stealth combat that I can both respect and feel in the final product.
I can love a story, and really connect with it, but recognize that there is way too god damn much exposition and a places where 15 minutes of speaking can be whittled down to five with no loss in emotional and dramatic gravity or the information presented. Kojima's games are an antithesis to the commonly adopted cinematic model of development. Where cinematic games like MW2, God of War, and Gears of War adapt the game to fit film models giving high adrenalin and fast pacing but leading to rushed stories and short single player campaigns. Kojima's games adapt the cinematic model to fit the longer form of the game medium. He attempts to utilize the game's longer run time with the dramatic abilities of cinema to create something very close to a visualization of the longform novel. It has a slower pace, longer periods of dialogue, character development and exposition and utilizes the time to give people a better understanding of characters and their motivation. However it leads to it's own problems of severely delaying gameplay at the expense of narrative progress, sacrificing a stable pacing and simply going too in depth into exposition and back story.
However, how deliberate this is is totally dependent on Kojima himself. His never-ending scripts might be the result him not feeling confident in the emotive power of current game visuals but it's still a problem nonetheless.
While I may be a huge fan of the series, I'm not going to desperately backpedal whenever I complain or just pat the game on back, quietly saying it's OK, I still love you. As much as I love the game, problems are still problems and I'm not going to let personal feelings cloud my judgement. If something simply and utterly does not make sense or does not work there is no excuse for it to be this way, why am I not allowed to say that this aspect of the game is poorly designed simply because. I can love a game despite it's faults, but I'm not going to forgive and forget said problems.
I need to point out that there is nothing wrong with just plain entertainment. My argument throughout these articles is that the games industry seems to try to focus solely on being pure entertainment and that better design, society (in the case of music games), and creativity suffered as a result. Also my arguments can truly be boiled down to: If there are blatant problems in game design that any schmuck such as myself can point out, why didn't the game designers manage to see it and fix it before they released the game. What compels the psychology of these people to completely overlook glaring missteps in their product that take minimal time and logic to conceptually and practically fix.
As for deus ex, my pedestals of design are actually system shock 2 (despite an unweildy UI), Homeworld and Half Life.
And as much as I LOVE deus Ex 1, it had a huge crop of problems. My main issue is the first game's adherence to old RPG rules always irked me and took me out the experience (if nanobots can be injected into your body to modify you at any time, why can't you just buy it off the UNC or Black Market) and yes the game's inclination towards stealth always bothered me as well. My issues with deus ex from a gameplay standard were that the weapons had no 'feel' and had a pewpew quality rather than feel like tools of death, the user interface was also unwieldy and the world, for all it's amazing atmosphere, felt very sterile for the most part.
What really bothered me about the first deus ex (I view invisible war as having remedied this problem) was the thematic inconsistency. It attempts to be morally ambiguous by veiling the villains in deceit and lies. but rather than giving the villain a relatable aspect or understandable feature, the bad guys just end up being classic mustache twirling videogame villains in the end.
The second game had better combat, story and more realistic customization options but it had it's own share of problems. It's limited user interface was somewhat aggravating and they did over limit the biomodding function.
I'll give games before 2002 the benefit of the doubt concerning gameplay , design and narrative flaws though. As much as they irk me and make me wonder how they could possibly think a poor design element was a good idea, complex realtime gameplay was still fairly new at that point and no one had really figured out how to work out all the kinks yet. But nowadays, with up to and over 30 years of previous experimentation and learning with gameplay and design, there is just no excuse.
I find (from actual research) most 20th century media and entertainment technology (CGI, Special Effects, sound design, graphics, controls etc) tend to follow a pattern of development and refinement I call the '30 year rule'.
The rule is this, any new entertainment technology or art takes about 30 years to refine. It took about thirty years from the birth of film to give us Metropolis, Sunrise and The Jazz Singer. In thirty years film essentially refined and established the rules of cinematography, narrative and sound design respectively.
In relation to games, Commercial videogames reached about 30 years old in 2002-2004. And by that time the essential rules for every genre, gameplay style, narrative conventions, Pacing, level and game design were figured out.
And looking further into the future, in 2012-2014 CGI will have reached it's 30 year mark. And even now, with films like Avatar and District 9, you can realistically see how CGI will reach photorealism by the end of it's 30 year gestation period.
After that, if your film, game, tv show etc. can't follow the basic lessons that your profession and predecessors took it's first 30 years to develop, then you just don't have an excuse.