We live in an outstanding time, technologically speaking. If you go back 25 years ago when I started gaming as a wee little Tyler, it would be hard to imagine what is now possible. We had great games that still stand the test of time because of fantastic game design, but the industry has been revolutionized so many times that little me would probably have a heart attack had these ideas been presented to me at that point. The internet and online gaming changed everything, games like Minecraft have come along and added a whole new element to games that people are picking up on and expanding upon in games like Rust. Speaking of Rust, or DayZ, these are games that scream "next-gen" to me (yes I'm aware they're on PC and next-gen tends to be a console term) because of the PvP social/survival concepts presented in them. Game mechanics and genres have been created or made more complex, visuals have come a hell of a long way since the old days. Games like Grand Theft Auto 3 offered us the "sandbox" genre and a series like The Elder Scrolls took open-world to a whole new level and gave us games with hundreds upon hundreds of hours. We have real talent writing the stories for games, we have action set pieces that weren't possible back in the day. Though AI will always be one of the more difficult things to program believably, it has come a long way and we've progressed past difficulty in games meaning, more often than not, that the "computer is cheating." We've seen indie culture rise to the point it gets mainstream coverage. The industry has even gone through controversy after controversy over the years in its attempt to be seen as a legitimate form of entertainment and/or art.
A person could go and on about how kick-ass video games are, but you get the point. We've come a long way and we will go even further. But don't mistake my admiration for video games as a weakness... no, I'm a cranky old bastard too just like the rest of the internet. We have to rage, I have to rage, let us rage for just a couple more seconds. I want to rage about the state of video games, which is flabbergasting (possibly the first time I've used the word) when you consider that long-ass wall of text above.
Let's just throw it out there: video games, as entertainment or an art form -- whichever you want, baby -- should have the number one priority of being fun to play. This is a blanket statement, of course, because I'm not really trying to put video games in the corner, and there are games that are able to break that mold, but we'll get into that more in a bit.
Every art form is something at their core. In their most pure sense, movies are visuals and moving pictures, books are written word and story, music is audio and so on and so forth. Games are a melting pot of these -- visuals may not be as realistic as movies but there's a dependance on them, games are long enough to tell captivating stories, while music has always been good for the tone and atmosphere. They have the added luxury of being interactive as a core idea, not just as a novelty like Choose Your Own Adventure books (which are fun).
But I think we're getting too caught up in making our games more like movies. That's my point in a nutshell. I have to reiterate that I'm speaking in general terms. I'm examining the state of games in a broad sense, but I stand firmly behind it.
When I pick up a game, I want it to be fun. A game can have shitty graphics, serviceable music, but as long as its fun then that's great. Earth Defense Force is a perfect example of this. If you look at the graphics compared to other games today, they look like crap. Outside of the main menu music for Insect Armageddon, I've never been involved in the music. But damn that game is silly, simple and a hell of a lot of fun. I play the games for hours and hours, because the game was designed thrill you. It succeeds.
A game like Earth Defense Force -- or a series in that case -- doesn't get bogged down with meaningless, boring cutscenes. The fascination with cinematics in gaming blows my mind because we've gotten to the point where companies will release trailers that only show the cinematic aspects of the game. This is fine if it's a teaser trailer, but if someone waits months for more information and all you get is a trailer showcasing how much of a movie it is... that's not okay. That's not how it works. Wow me with your gameplay, make me want to pick up the controller, grab the mouse or play with my joystick.
I don't even need complex gameplay. I'm still okay with some games being button mashers. I love Suda51 games and they are known for being stylish yet not complicated in the least. I love when games go out of their way to offer new gameplay experiences, too. I just want to play.
There is where I backtrack a little bit and become more understanding, however. I'm not saying that games can't put love and care into the other elements of their games. You can impress me with your eye candy, whether it's brilliant visual design or high definition graphics. Let me see how beautiful you've made that grass I'm stepping on. Take me to other worlds with great artistic ideas.
Give me a soundtrack that I sit here and listen to when I'm doing other stuff, because I want that too. Believe me, I listen to a lot of video game OSTs.
But give me something I want to play.
A good cutscene can definitely add to the experience but I'm just going to throw it out there and say that a lot of games don't have interesting cutscenes. They're generic (but generic doesn't mean terrible), and the focus isn't on staging good shots because they're not movie directors. It's not their job. The Metal Gear series can get away with that these days because Kojima wishes he was a movie director and actually puts a lot of emphasis on making memorable cutscenes. If you have to watch a game, which you will in most games these days at some point, then give us something exciting. Don't give us what a game like Haze did with people standing in a helicopter talking over and over.
Still, there are so many games where I think, "It would be sweet if we could have played this instead of watch it." It's why games like Bayonetta should be more credit because while there are certainly cutscenes, it also allows you to play these excellent moments quite often. I'm harping on about Metal Gear so much because Metal Gear Solid 4 was especially contentious regarding how long the cutscenes are, but remember at the end (um, spoilers?) where you basically crawl through a furnace? Would that scene have been great had you just watched it? Yes, it was a big moment for Solid Snake and his heroism. Was it better because you were able to play it? Definitely, because even though it was only button mashing (to the point of pain I might add), it put you in the moment.
Journey was an artistic masterpiece on all fronts, but like Metal Gear, it never forgets that it's ultimately a game. It was a perfect example of how a game can get visuals and music right to the point that it actually compliments the gameplay. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, two games that are widely considered "art," have compelling gameplay, even if Shadow of the Colossus does consist a lot of riding a horse through barren areas before you get to the epic boss battles.
Admittedly, indie games tend to be more guilty of this than big budget titles. I've played a ton of freeware games that have minimalist gameplay, to put it lightly. However, most of the time they get away with this because they are 5 minutes long and do other things right, so even if you just walk from left to right a little bit, it's fine. I'm not against expanding video games into new and interesting territories, but a lot of these games would overstay their welcome if they weren't so short (a good design choice to keep them short). There are exceptions, of course, with a game like To The Moon being emotional and memorable while being relatively light on "real" gameplay.
Some games and developers get away with this kind of thing because their talent in other areas is impressive. Jake King-Spooner, a guy I have mentioned numerous times on this blog, releases some games that you really only walk around... but he's so good at what he does that it's okay. However, you'll notice that I reviewed Sluggish Morss: Ad Infinitum and gushed about it, but still only gave it a 9.5 because I wish it had more gameplay.
I feel like I'm coming across as too close-minded in this matter and I think I may be forgetting points that I wanted to make (I'm old, forgive me), but I play a lot of games that go against my sentiment that I'm expressing in this post. In fact, I greatly enjoy a lot of them. If you asked me to prioritize what's important in video games, however, I'd have to pick gameplay first and foremost. Games can buck that trend, but in general, that's where I stand.
