Written By: Tyler Selig
 |
| That's me throwin' molotovs at people who feel different than I do, and who didn't ask for my opinion anyway. I don't know who the other two are because I have no friends. |
Hey there everybody, I know it’s
been a while since there’s been a blog post. My next post was originally
supposed to be a review of Batman: Arkham Origins, but I got it for Xbox 360
and my save got corrupted about ten hours in. This means that I’m too annoyed
to restart the game right away, and since I saw other people having this
problem I’m hoping it’s not just my piece of shit 360 and it’s something they
can patch. Either way, I’ll have to finish my experience with Batman later on.
But never fear because I’ve
found a way to make an article not about Batman, but actually kind of about
Batman. An article with a Batman “review” (in quotation marks because it isn’t
a review to me unless I’ve at least finished the story and done a bunch of side
quests) jammed in there. The genesis of the article came from me reading
reviews of the new game (specifically IGN and Gamespot) and taking issue with
one main complaint: how similar it is to the other games in the series.
I’ll go on record and say that
Arkham City is one of those games I’d rate a 10 and I firmly believe it’s close
to perfect. I don’t think any game is perfect and I never will. Even my most
loved games have minor flaws but that’s the thing… they’re so minor it hardly
matters. I would say Arkham Asylum isn’t perfect but damn it is an awesome
game. So I had high hopes for Origins and even though the series switched
developers, I felt their heads were in the right place. I thought reviews would
reflect this. I single out sites like Gamespot and IGN because they’re so big
within the industry. The fact that IGN gave it a 7.8 (which is pretty good) and
Gamespot gave it a 6 (which is a terrible rating) rang some alarms in my head. And
it hurt.
So I investigated. The general
consensus is that it’s more of the same. That’s when my brain started to do
think. And that also hurt.
Why is that a bad thing? Some of
the best series of all-time have been doing it for years. And why was Batman
singled out when series like Call of Duty are notorious for getting high
ratings despite offering very similar experiences. In the case of CoD, there is
literally one – Modern Warfare or Black Ops, which offer slightly different
experiences from one another but are still ultimately CoD – every year.
I’m not picking on Call of Duty.
It can have its fans. I’m sure they do this with Battlefield but I’m not into
the series. They do it with Assassin’s Creed as far as I can tell (again, not a
series I’m real into). Metal Gear, which is my favourite series of all time,
doesn’t really differ that much from
one another. Some differ more than others but I’d say Solid 1 to 4 aren’t a
hell of a lot different outside of where they take place and some evolutions of
gameplay mechanics. But it’s still Metal Gear. Killzone hasn’t changed a whole
lot since the first one. Another series I love. Borderlands 2 is not a hell of
a lot different than the first. I doubt the third will reinvent the series.
I didn’t want Origins to break
new ground… I just wanted it to feed me more of what I loved about the other
two in the series.
In my play through that was
tragically cut short, I enjoyed the shit out of Origins. It had more of the
free-flowing combat that is one of the best things to ever happen to fighting
games. It gave me an intriguing story that did a wonderful job of giving Batman
a reason to fight so many villains in one night (saw that in a review, thought
it was a good point). The predator mode is still amazing, with clever level
design and so many ways to take out opponents. The crime scene investigation
element isn’t as deep as it could be but the game is better for having it,
though I think this is a point of contention for people. The few boss battles I’ve
partaken in have been exciting and Deathstroke was challenging to me. I also
got to see people like Anarky. It also has a fast travel which is always good
in an open world game. I don’t care what IGN says: it doesn’t disservice the
world at all to be able to move quickly around it. I fast travelled in Skyrim
like a boss.
So to me, Origins captures the
essence of both Batman and these recent Arkham games and though it’s probably
not as polished as Arkham City and it’s not a step-forward like that game was,
it was an extremely satisfying game, not taking into consideration things like
corrupted save files (like I said, I don’t know if that’s my systems fault or
the games) or other glitches that are patchable, if the developers are paying
attention.
Okay, so this has become more of
a Batman review than I wanted. So let’s get down to the points I wanted to
make.
My point is: Origins is more of
the same but that’s okay. You have to have your series that don’t innovate
every time. There are times that I just want to take part in something
familiar, something that I know I will love.
There is a reason you gravitate towards a certain series of games, or even
movies, books, etc. It’s because the original gives you something that you can
sink your teeth in and like drugs, you want more more more. Not everyone is
like this, but judging from the sales of certain series that are mammoths
within the industry, it’s obvious that there are a lot of people picking up
what I’m putting down.
It’s hypocritical of me to say
this, but yes I’ve criticized games for being predictable and for playing it
safe. On the surface my comment doesn’t make any sense because I play games
that are predictable and play it safe. Underneath though, that statement is
more of a personal preference than anything. It’s less “this game sucks for
being the same” and more “I just got tired of playing it.”
There are just so many games
that have the same gameplay mechanics, but they’ll throw in a few different
guns, change up the maps, tweak something a little bit here and there, polish
the game, make it a little bit bigger and badder, then release it. I know it
feels like I’m picking on shooters but they have been the genre of choice for a
lot of people so that’s what I’ve used as a point of reference.
Not every game is going to revolutionize the industry. I don’t even
want them to, nor do I want every game to be completely original. I don’t want
every game to be like Journey but I’ll enjoy the fuck out of Journey when it’s
given to me.
Maybe Origins falls apart as the
game goes along, though I doubt it. I’ve seen it called glorified DLC and that’s
unfair because then you have to start shit-talking a lot of classic games. The
fact of the matter is, the game industry, much like the movie industry, will
find things that work and exploit that. Developers will find something that
sticks, and they will release that over and over because it’s a business and
because they know there’s a market for it. So while it can be annoying that new
and fresh games get overlooked, and believe me it happens all the time, there
is still place for these sequels that provide consumers with a product that
they know and love. It feels weird to treat massive series like the underdogs,
but I’m just calling it like I see it. I’m the first one to pimp a title that I
feel brings something new to the table, but the truth of the matter is, I just
love games as an art form so I embrace both familiar games and games that have
their own little niche.
I didn’t mean for this to be a long article but it seems to be. I’ll make
one final point and allow me to generalize for the next little bit: You can’t
actually satisfy gamers. This is true for fans of everything, but since this is
a game blog I’m targeting you. Yes, you. And me. And the person next door. We
all suck.
If WB Games Montreal had changed the series too much people would have
bitched. They keep it the same (but add a few things) and people bitch. So what’s
someone to do? Origins isn’t a bad game but people keep rating it way lower
(seriously, a 6?) than is necessary. I don’t expect people to gush over it,
though I am, but what were they to do? Origins suffers mainly from the fact
that it’s from a great series and is arguably the weakest link of the three.
But that doesn’t make it a bad game, and people can’t seem to realize that. It’s
like, if a game doesn’t live up to peoples ridiculous standards, it becomes a
shitty game. Although I don’t think people are going that far with Origins, my
point remains.
I was playing Warface a while ago and in my first-impressions I said
that it’s a generic shooter but all I saw in-game were people saying it’s the
worst game ever. The nerve of me to say this because it’s all personal opinion
but no, it just wasn’t a good game. It wasn’t the worst ever. People who say
that make me wonder if they’ve ever played a truly bad game.
So what do you think about me white knighting for a big-budget title? Think
I have no soul? You’re right, but let me know what you think in the comments
below and see ya next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment