As we sit in the seventh generation of consoles we have nearly come to the end of the road as far as perfecting the way certain things should be done. Take the platforming genre; the once wave upon wave of platform titles has whittled it's way down to a handful; Mario, Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Tomb Raider are all thats left of the genre. Each has perfected it's own style, game play from either gradual improvement during sequels or by borrowing elements from each other. The reason for this is that the platforming genre has got it down to a tee on how to create a good platforming game. You want the best automatic camera then take Mario 64, you want to make the setting futuristic then look at Ratchet and Clank. Well established codes of conduct that equal success within the platforming world. So why is it then that this trend does not continue throughout the rest of the games industry? In both hardware and software there have been various precedents set that just seem to fall to wayside for something else that just doesn't work as well.


This whole topic came about after my recent playtime with both Metal Gear Solid 4 and Dark Sector. Now both of these games include a cover system and both try to implement it in two different ways. Dark Sector's system borrows heavily from Gears of War, in fact you could say it is a blatant rip off. So why then after Gears of War perfected the cover system for 3rd person shooters do the team at Digital Extremes decide to unnecessarily change it. For those unaware, in Dark Sector once in cover you are able to move around in context sensitive ways just like Gears by using the 'A' button, except for the fact that if you want to vault over an object the button becomes 'B' instead of 'A' which is used for every other action from that position. It's an unnecessary addition that just ends up confusing the player who already knows how that part should play.
Now Metal Gear Solid 4 is a different kettle of fish, not such a heavy action orientated game and one that uses cover in a slightly different way. The thing is that in MGS 4 they have also tried to use a similar system to Gears of War but in a much slower environment. This however just doesn't work, a lot cover use in Metal Gear revolves around being in cover to move around undetected and then break out a specific moments and move to the next secluded area. This is where a context sensitive face button just doesn't work. So what you end up with in MGS 4 is a cover system that is broken and not fit for purpose, no truer is this seen than in the multiplayer. There does however currently exist a cover system for a game that is slow paced, more tactical and that is called Rainbow Six Vegas. Pop in and pop out all dealt with a squeeze that is much more applicable to slow games, the standard was set, take advantage and use it.


Another example is one that is quite prevalent in the thoughts of Wii and PlayStation 3 owners and that is how to do online properly. Forget your thoughts on whether you should have to pay for the service or not and just focus on the service itself. Microsoft has gotonline implementation on consoles completely sewn up. There is no questioning that Xbox Live is the standard for what online gaming on consoles should be like. So why when both the Wii and PlayStation 3 launch a year later do neither system have a competent online structure. I could write a full article on the differences between the three services but I am sure that you all know these already. Thus I am just going to list the differences which I feel are blindingly obvious.

- Ability to send and receive messages whilst in game
- Having to install demos after downloading
- Agreeing to online terms and conditions before commencing play
- Unified friends list

Now I know some of you will point out the fact that some of these will be addressed on the PS3 in an upcoming firmware. However this argument is null and void for the reason I stated earlier that the PS3 launched after the Xbox and Microsoft's cards had been on the table for a year already. You could even argue that there plans had been known for 5 years. I personally cannot understand why Sony did not just take a good thing, put there own twist on it and run with it. Would it be ripping of Microsoft? Yes, probably but the system works and is clearly the superior product.


To keep this article a reasonable length I shall dispense with the hardware comparisons as I am sure you can begin to understand where I would be heading. Now you may argue that if everyone was to simply follow everyone else then there would be no innovation and the genres would become stale and boring. As mentioned at the top of this post there exists a genre that has taken game ideas that are successful and run with them but with their own differentiating factor. This far into the games industry's life we should not have to put up with substandard game mechanics and neither should developers/publishers be willing to put them in. It is extremely frustrating as gamer to use one type of system that works flawlessly but then in another game be forced to use something that is clearly not up to scratch. It's not hard to do and I can't see developers being unaware of these sort of things happening, all you would need is a play test from a well versed gamer. Lets promote Intelligent evolution of standards that can only make games better and deliver a clear, precise and most importantly an enjoyable experience.


Lazlow out.