Problems With All Games: Being Overrated
OMG BEST GAME EVAR IF U DUN LIKE IT YOU MUST LIKE GAYSTATION (nb. I am aware that it is also available on PS3)
If you look at the theme of most of my posts, it probably seems like a game developer must’ve kicked my dog and that a game publisher ran over my kid. Admittedly, I do place a lot of blame for the problems in gaming on developers and publishers. As I’ve already talked about, they are the group guilty of releasing shovelware, contributing to (causing?) the massive hype around certain games while other just as worthy games get released without any fanfare, and trying to suck money out of you while they hold onto control over how you use their games (that you supposedly own). And don’t think I don’t have more complaints for future posts, either.
I have to admit two things, however. One, that there are plenty of good games that come out, still, in spite of the stupid development and marketing decisions that are sometimes made, and two, not all problems with gaming are the domain of game makers.
The gaming ‘community’ is pretty good at being stupid, too, like in the ‘robust discourse’ of a typical XBox Live session, in proposing boycotts that they don’t follow, or having ridiculous attachments to particular games and/or systems that go beyond a healthy interest and devolve into pointless arguments and flame wars (‘ZOMG, DA GAYSTATION SUX XBOX 4EVA!!!’). Parts of the gaming press are also often pretty good at helping contribute to the hype train, and the scoring system that some magazines and websites use is broken (and something I will discuss in yet another post).
A problem both fanboys and these segments of the gaming press share is a habit of overrating games. It usually goes one of two ways:
- A game is released, reviews solidly, and then somehow rises in the collective imagination over the years until it’s held as a pinnacle of achievement for (insert genre, developer, system or publisher here).
OR
- A game is released, reviews spectacularly, and is held up the ‘THE BEST GAME EVAR!’ or similar, completely ignoring the obvious flaws. The game may be a great game, but hardly the perfect game that it gets reviewed as, and this eventually gets sheepishly acknowledged – but only in hindsight.
I can use two of my perennial whipping boys as examples to illustrate each.
In the first case, Final Fantasy VII is a great example. As a lot of people’s entrance to RPGs and a step forward as far as cutscenes on consoles go, it has plenty of reason to be well regarded, and it is a good game. But best RPG of all time, or even worse, best game of all time? Puh-leeze. You can argue the relative merits of atmosphere and mechanics, but Final Fantasy VI was pretty much a better game, as was V, arguably (and although I acknowledge it’s not a better game, I personally prefer IX to VII). Ergo, it is not only not the best RPG of all time, it’s not even the best RPG in its series.
As for the second case, step forward, yet again, GTA IV. You were ambitious, set out a remarkable stylised version of New York, and I played you for nearly 40 hours. You also had terrible draw-in and jaggies and looked very fuzzy on the XBox (and I assume the PS3, too), chugged along horribly without a quad-core processor on the PC, had cars that controlled like barges, hollow characters, and both your mission and game structure followed a model that was basically inherited, with only small changes, from a near 10-years-old predecessor. We had a good time together, GTA IV, but you weren’t the perfect game your other suitors said you were. I think they realised that, too, once they had stopped drinking the kool-aid and sobered up.
Image from Xboxer, resized.
