Dead Pixels has 41 chronicles

1. How Far Can Games Go Without Action?
   

   Player Chronicle -- Posted on Apr 15 2009

   Dead Pixels
   By Ryan M. Eft
   4/14/09
   
   Ever since the release of the Wii (and to a lesser extent the DS), the elder brand of gamer, the ones who have been playing since they were able, have questioned the new brands of gaming they represent. Okay, that’s not quite the right terminology. They’ve whined and crabbed at the top of their lungs about the pitiful lack of “real games” available on Nintendo’s consoles. We’ll leave aside the troublesome definition of “real games” for the moment. While I usually structure my arguments as well as I can, I have to confess to not being innocent of these complaints. I believe I once referred to the phenomenon as “Nintendo’s betrayal”.
   
   However, while I’ll certainly not make any excuses for the level of horribleness the Wii is subject to, there’s a question that doesn’t get often asked among gamers. Namely “real games”? What are “real games”? One of the popular terms applied to much of the casual market output is “games that are not games”. As catchy as that is, it really only makes sense if it’s your Zen moment of the day. Within the gaming community itself, it can be hard to recognize this, because as a group we’ve long since arrived on a few definitions of what we consider to be acceptable video games. Sure, there is dissension among us lifers, but on the whole what we want is action, challenge, and the ability to prove ourselves better than the game world. Yes, these things are all games. But the prevalence of things like Rock Band and Brain Age in some libraries of even the most jaded “real” gamers should be evidence enough that they are not the only qualifiers.
   
   Take, as an example, last year’s Professor Layton and the Curious Village. Released over a year ago, it’s still shipping, and still selling to both sides of the aisle. That’s damned amazing for a DS game not made by Nintendo. And the clincher for the above points is that the game doesn’t contain a lick of action, violence, or physical skill. It’s essentially one of those books of brainteasers, painted over with a story and beautiful visuals. That it was developed by the always-excellent Level 5 has a lot to do with the fact that it still sells while similar games often linger, but that’s really beside the point.
   
   The point is this: games can be off the beaten path of what we’ve come to expect, and still be considered “hardcore”. That’s such a murky word anyway. What is hardcore? Is there a certain number of people that have to die, or a certain amount of required explosions? Are hardcore games limited to a certain number of colors?
   
   If the die-hard crowds were capable of getting over deep-seated biases against certain types of games, the potential biggest benefactor might surprise you. Imagine if, say, EA did not feel compelled to inject every Harry Potter game with arbitrary action sequences purely for the sake of holding down someone’s attention span. Most of Harry’s spells could be like they are in the books…based on remaining safe rather than kicking ass. The beauty of that license is in imagination and surprise anyway. A HP game that revolved around tricking opponents and exploring the surroundings might…horrors!...actually be a good game.
   
   Now take the same principal and apply it to the Lord of the Rings. The film-based games were fine for what they were, but ultimately they stripped out everything but the action and lost something of both Tolkien and Jackson’s visions in translation. If gamers developed beyond the need for instant gratification, something truly wonderful (and more akin to the original stories) could be done with Middle-Earth. As a Ranger, you could mark and create your own paths through the wilderness. As a Hobbit, staying out of sight and getting to your objectives in one piece would be the order of the day. Better yet, when there was a fight, it would be in keeping with the original spirit, epic precisely because of the rarity. And I know everyone reading this is thinking of at least one well-loved license* that would be great to jump into “if only they didn’t have to change it so much for video games”.
   
   Well, there you all go. The fact is, they don’t have to fit those things into video games. They have to fit them into our perception of video games, which is ultimately the only thing holding games back from really becoming the most versatile medium available. I’ll never argue that most Wii output is good. Neither will I deny that most non-traditional output is not worth playing. But what gets forgotten is that the majority of games period are not worth playing for very long if at all, just like most movies are not worth watching more than once. If most of what was made was fantastic, we’d get bored. There’d be little to distinguish between bad and wonderful.
   
   Granted, licenser's letting up on developers would have to happen in order for this new phenomenon to really improve licensed games. But there are other benefits to loosening our self-imposed restrictions on what is worth playing. I doubt any of us, even the most hardcore fans of specific game types, want to play that and only that type of game forever.
   
   Part of the reason the quality of off-the-beaten-path games is low is that the larger gaming market is still fighting acceptance of different games. So as usual, much falls onto our shoulders. Are we ready to help games evolve into what they can really be? Or are we content to let them stagnate? And before you say that gaming is uber-powerful and can’t be crippled that easily, I would remind everyone what happens to everything that refuses to evolve.
   ___________________________
   
   * What licenses do you think could make good games if done right? What would it require? PM me and let me know and maybe your suggestions will make a future column.

   
   

   ---

   Send To A Friend

Dead Pixels has 0 comment s on this chronicle.