2010 sucked for me in a lot of ways. I was laid off twice. I lost two of my
close friends suddenly and unexpectedly.
THIS happened. Needless to say there was a
lot of
crap going on this past year. So, as a form of stress relief, I turned to video games this year like never before. I played more games this year than I think I have in my whole life combined. Well, maybe not that much... The point is, I played a lot of games. And I came to a realization: Games are best when the idea behind them is simple and uncomplicated.
What were some of the best rated games for last year? A quick glance at
MetaCritic shows game such
Super Mario Galaxy 2. Mass Effect 2. Pac-Man Championship Edition DX. Starcraft 2. God of War 3. Super Meat Boy. Wow:Cataclysm. Civ 5. Just to name a few. I don't think these games are mistakes. They all have one thing in common: They're not firsts. They're sequels. But not just any sequels, they're sequels made by teams who knew what they had, cut the crap out, knew what they did right the first time and expanded on it or left it as is and released solid products that are fun to play and easy to lose yourself in.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a prime example of this. When Nintendo set out to make
SMG 2 they knew that they had a winner with
SMG1. Everyone loved it. It got
rave reviews. But why? Why was this game so amazing? Because it was simple. It's Mario. The goal is simple: get to the star at the end of the level. That's it. Nothing more complicated than that. Granted, there were the amazing platforming aspects to the game. But the point is never lost. The basic idea, to get to the star and have fun doing it, is never lost in a sea of random windows and lists or nonsensical story or bizarre gameplay elements that don't make sense with the rest of the game. It's kept simple. And everyone wins because of it.
Another example, though not exactly obvious, is
Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 2, while not exactly simple in the same way as
Super Mario Galaxy, figured out what it did right in the original Mass Effect and just made it better. No more tedious expeditions in the moon rover from hell, no more elevators. Instead we get more engaging third person action, an enthralling story with interesting characters and the return of the semi-unique conversation gameplay. Get the mission, go to the mission, talk to him/her, shoot a bunch of guys, talk to him/her again in their inevitable betrayal, shoot them, rinse, repeat. Simple. Fun. Perfect.
Going to the exact opposite spectrum of the gaming universe from
Mass Effect 2, we have the wonderful XBLA game
Limbo. This game was not only simple in it's simple platforming gameplay, but it's gorgeous monochrome palette, surprising lack of dialogue just made for an enjoyable, fun, surprisingly complex while simple form or storytelling just goes to show how keeping the basic ideas behind your game makes for a better product.
On the other hand, things can out of hand to a bit of a ridiculous degree. The obvious and unfortunate example of this is
Final Fantasy 13.
Final Fantasy, while gorgeous, was ultimately one of the worst entries in the Final Fantasy series because it just couldn't seem to get it's crap together. The plot was completely nonsensical, the outrageously linear "beginning" all just make for a less fun game. And the battle system. Oh the battle system. It seems to me that when the creators of a game get to the point that they build a battle system that literally plays itself, they've missed the point. It is widely accepted that
Final Fantasy was in it's prime with FF 6-9. I would argue that this is because they were simpler. There was no "paradigm shifting" or sphere grid or any of that to over complicate matters. The story was easy to follow and the characters were well thought out. And despite actually being linear, the world felt open and huge. They were simpler. Easy to comprehend. Kill this guy, move to the next town. With very little nonsense in between save for some dialogue and some battles.
In conclusion, game devs should remember to keep it simple when making their games. When a game is simple and easy to understand, often times it makes for a much better, more enjoyable and more fun gaming experience. SquareEnix, I'm looking at you! If FFXIII Verses or FFXV is as bad as XIII, someone's losing an eye!
One of the games I'm most excited for this year is Resistance 3 and everything I'm hearing from Insomniac Games is how they're basically simplifying it. They're taking what worked from the previous games and cutting out the unnecessary bits. Even stuff that was awesome (8-player co-op) or a major selling point (60-player versus) they're cutting out so that they can focus and aim their new game the exact way they want.
As for the games, that's basically what any developer worth its salt ought to be doing: recognizing their strengths and weaknesses (in terms of the studio as well as the franchise), and building the former while minimizing (or improving on) the latter. One other highly-praised game--Red Dead Redemption--manages to pull this off. Despite it not really being part of a franchise, it's a spiritual sequel to both Red Dead Revolver and GTA IV, much in the same vein of the others on this list. I found GTA IV unplayable, but RDR a huge timesuck.
In 2009, Assassin's Creed II pulled this off beautifully, and while I haven't gotten far enough in Brotherhood to say one way or the other, I've already seen improvements in the formula and critics seem to enjoy the further refinements too.
Then I look at Vanquish. While fun, it's a mess in terms of focus. The score attack system has no real weight to it when the weapons for each mission are randomised. Who's to say the score won't improve until you reload and receive the weapons you want? And why, with so much emphasis on replaying levels, does our performance have to be based on a 6-digit number? Why not a medallion, like in Platinum's near-flawless Bayonetta?
Sometimes, less is more. More features don't necessarily equate to better games if they're not well-realisd in the first place.
They just made a boring game. Not what I would call bad. Just boring.
I don't know so much about cutting out features. Cutting out features means cutting DOWN complexity, and complexity is very often an inherent good, even sometimes when complexity IS the bad kind (i.e. the "fat" in games).
Remember when Valve cut out grenades, conc. jumps, extra weapons, etc. out of TF2? People were pisssssseeedddd. And, in fact, a lot of high level players are still pissed because while TFC may have been inelegant in its complexity, it was still, well, COMPLEX, a lot more so than TF2 and, thus, more interesting (at high levels of play, anyway).
Or remember when Smash Bros. Brawl came out and high-level Melee players were peeved at the lack of advanced techniques? Melee, at high-levels of play, was comparable to any fighting game in its complexity whereas Brawl was reduced to a shallow minimum and was a lot less interesting because of it.
If developers are going to cut down complexity, they better know exactly what they're doing. It's better to keep features and REFINE them than outright cut them out.